(no title)
king_geedorah | 4 months ago
I watched a pretty neat video[0] on the topic of ruperts / noperts a few weeks ago, which is a rather fun coincidence ahead of this advancement.
king_geedorah | 4 months ago
I watched a pretty neat video[0] on the topic of ruperts / noperts a few weeks ago, which is a rather fun coincidence ahead of this advancement.
anyfoo|4 months ago
cubefox|4 months ago
So if he proves that the snub cube doesn't have the Rupert property, he could still be the first to prove that not all Archimedean solids have it.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snub_cube
brabel|4 months ago
MyOutfitIsVague|4 months ago
It's pretty easy to brute force most shapes to prove the property true. The challenge is proving that a shape does not have the Rupert property, or that it does when it's a very specific and tight fit. You can't test an infinite number of possibilities.
ngruhn|4 months ago
terom|4 months ago
xz18r|4 months ago