if this post gets 729 upvotes i will post again with 3 times as many triangles
These posts have actually pushed !mathmemes@lemmy.blahaj.zone up to 941 users / day, so I think we've got a chance at making it. We're already past the halfway point after less than 6 hours.
I just subscribed. I can verify that this has reached the front page and is drawing people in.
Get out there people and spread the good word!
"Have you heard about our saviour Rainb0wSkeppy@lemmy.world."
Oh man this is fun. I remember we had another meme here, uuuh what was it "twice as wide en passant"? What ever happened to that?
Next up, the Koch snowflake that asymptotically approaches a Hausdorff dimension of (log 4 / log 3) with each post
I want another iteration after this one, but if we get a next one it's almost certainly the final iteration. These posts were consistently getting upper 200s until the last one made it into the 400s. This tells me that people who were on the fence about this gave an up vote to keep it going one more time that hadn't been up voting it before. Maybe there's enough people who want to keep it going one more time to cross today's threshold, but I doubt people who weren't feeling this before are going to be converted and get us beyond 5x what people were voting on it before it got close to its natural ending point
In a couple more iterations we're going to run into resolution problems.
But then Gabriel's Horn runs into paint thickness problems.
Why you gotta be colorist like that? Black triangles get no say in how deep the Sierpinksy Utopia goes on Lemmy?
I’ve been waiting for my chance to upvote this series when it would matter, but now on this principle I will decline.
That’s no reason to be colorist. We need to get community engagement up not by being exclusionary.
Taking a triangle and making it into a tri-force = 5 times as many triangles, not 3.
Then taking that and making it into further ti-forces is x3+2
You've failed your math assignment.
But what about the unlined, non-equilateral triangles that I can draw between any 3 arbitrary points in the given plane? Did you count those triangles!?!
The rule is 3x +2
The first isn’t 5x, it still follows the same rule.
I never said they did, I was explaining how the rule would apply to anything, the first iteration is never 5x…
What a fucked up way to explain a simple thing, while making yourself wrong at the same time… while attempting to call someone else out… yikes…
Here, maybe some pictures will get it through your thick skull.
One triangle:
Five triangles:
A triangle made into a tri-force equals five times as many triangles.
From there, it becomes x3+2 (Ie: what my original comment, which you failed to read, said.)
1 -> 5 -> 17
Huh, the second still follows the rule of 3x +2…
Why are you incorrectly saying it’s 5x?
If you want to be pedantic and call someone out, atleast make sure you’re correct… there’s one rule, not two, the first isn’t 5x while the others are 3x +2.
This isn’t a hard concept to understand, but it is incredibly ironic you called someone else out first and are still making this same folly….
Or let me explain it this way, you said they failed their math assignment, do you know of any assignment that would be marked correct by using two different rules to explain a singular ruled equation…..?
Taking a triangle and making it into a tri-force = 5 times as many triangles, not 3.
Then taking that and making it into further ti-forces is x3+2
Which part of this statement is incorrect?
At no point have I said further equations are also x5, only the original; 1*5=5.
AGAIN try actually reading the comments you reply to.
1×3+2 = 5
Sure you could claim it's 5x, but why do that when the other rule you have already works?
You’ve failed your math assignment.
The first part, there’s not two rules, the first isn’t 5x… that would be marked incorrect on an assignment….
How is this so hard for you to understand? You seem to have wanted to call out OP for being off by 2, while you’re just using the wrong equation to begin with.
You’ve failed your math assignment, there isn’t two rules, do I need to repeat this 5x before you comprehend or something…?
If the first is only 1 triangle, I can't see how the second would be anything but 3 triangles.
Three small white triangles, one black triangle and one large multicoloured triangle, I think.
The second triangle is 5 on account of the black triangle on the inside and the compound triangle made up of all three smaller triangles and the fourth negative space triangle. I believe the formula for how many triangles is linear because each iteration of the fractal can be represented as scooping more negative space triangles from the existing set of triangles. Each iteration you scoop out the same number of black triangles as you had white triangles the previous iteration, creating two more white triangles for every white triangle you had before, and adding one more compound triangle.
The numbers we see though from each early iteration are as follows:
1 -> 5 -> 17 -> 53 -> 161
Which happens to conform with 3(n-1)+2
I was using some random numbers as an example, you’re still wrong, it’s not 5x…
1 becomes 5
5 becomes 17
17 becomes 53
Where is the 5x…? Only the first because 1x3+2 =5
That’s 1x3 = 3, 3+2 = 5. Incase it’s not clear enough for you again.
Maybe reread my comment, because it’s quite clear, while yours is completely and utterly wrong.
Taking a triangle and making it into a tri-force = 5 times as many triangles, not 3.
Then taking that and making it into further ti-forces is x3+2
No really, you should actually read the comments you reply to.
Even you said it:
Where is the 5x…?
1 becomes 5
I thought I just kept seeing the same post. Then I clicked after seeing the posted 1d ago and wow. I missed a bunch.
I have down voted this every time. But that wont matter this time. No way it gets 700 upvotes.
