Why are you being so hostile about this?
Iām not sure why people think that writers donāt make typos. In my experience, writers are responsible for the vast majority of them. Proofreading is not writing.
7 Likes
If you like this sort of thing, I can highly recommend http://www.amazon.com/The-Classical-Cookbook-Andrew-Dalby/dp/0892363940
1 Like
The bolded excerpt is about the Gaussian curvature of an idealized surface, not about the properties of a slice of pizza.
Letās not be idiots about this.
2 Likes
I guess. Itās just that when a typo results in another word (rather than simply an obviously misspelled word), it seems, I donāt know, dumber. Since Boing Boing is really trying hard to look like a professional website, I somehow hold you guys to a higher standard than the average website comment.
Also, donāt you guys call yourselves āeditorsā?
(I sound more hostile than I really feel. Mistakes can happen, of course. But if they happen in public, I feel it my duty to heroically exact public shaming, for the eventual betterment of all.)
@mtdna Having RTFAād, Iād say my comments apply to an even greater degree. The article hangs a lantern on the fact that Gaussās work requires an inelastic surface, then proceeds to make only physical examples, all of which have Youngās moduli, as well as buckling and crippling behaviors, most of which are only empirically understood.
Again, Iām sure that all these principles of structure are related to Gaussian curvature, but claiming that Gauss taught us how to fold pizza is like saying that Newton taught us how to cook it, given that he developed differential calculus (which underpins the principles of heat transfer).
2 Likes
Awwe I missed all the fun. Came to say the thing about elasticity, but since thatās covered, Iāll say the thing about whereās the ādeep math?ā If you want to use Gaussā principle you have to be able to take a partial differential. Woo. Iām sure the proof is harder, but you donāt need proof to eat the pizza.
Now, if the pizza had been a Riemann manifold imbedded in another, higher-dimension manifoldā¦
Clearly Gaussian Curvature is NOT the reason why we fold the pizza slice.
We fold it because thatās a way that works, and Iād suggest we humans learned that from trial and error, whenever we ate things that were thin and floppy, from well before we ever had a concept of mathematical theory.
Gaussian theory may help us explain, in an uneccessarily complex way, why our food flops.
But we can make lightweight, stiff structures quite intuitively, without ever knowing it.
Yāaint from around here, are ya?
1 Like
In engineering, we call it increasing the āsecond moment of areaā otherwise known as the āarea moment of inertiaā or simply āthe moment of inertiaā. It is the same reason some beams flex excessively and others do not.
Doesnāt it apply as an approximation to explain why folding the pizza stiffens it in the desired direction? Obviously, you canāt stiffen the unbaked dough by folding it because it just stretches.
Deep mathS(!!!) would be for Chicago-style pizza, surely?
1 Like
Just for you Corrections, typos, grammar flubs and errors
1 Like
No, folding the pizza in either way shown does not change what is called the āintrinsic metricā. That is, if you draw a bunch of lines on the pizza and then make the fold, neither the angles between the lines nor their lengths change. The amazing thing about Gaussian curvature is that it only depends on the intrinsic metric, not the precise details of how the surface sits in 3-dimensional space.
Now, adding in factors from real life pizza, the derivation of the theorem is going to get some error terms. Youād actually have to go through it all to be sure, but I would think that the error terms would be 3rd order or higher. So unless you have a lot of toppings, the theorem should be close enough to true to make no practical difference.
Iād been reading/watching some tutorials on complex curved shapes in jewelry making and metalworking recently that seem somewhat related.
https://www.google.com/search?q=anticlastic+curvature+gaussian+jewelry&tbm=isch
1 Like
Noted. Also, sorry. :-/
1 Like
Actually, that assumption does hold for Little Caesars ā¢.
1 Like
People have weird definitions of āhamburgerā - with some claiming that the meat patty alone can be called a hamburger. For me the minimum requirements to fit the definition is to have 2 buns and a mince meat patty.
1 Like
1 bun normally does me, but I like the idea.
1 Like
Yeahā¦ you know what I meanā¦ 1 bun halved 
Then thereās this:
(do not watch if hungry or extremely full)
1 Like
