Jokes2 mins ago
A Fractal Question
As a Koch snowflake perimeter increases iterally towards an infinite length, I am told that the area within the snowflake is always exactly 1.6 times that of the original triangle. But how can this be if at each iteration you are adding a discreet number of triangles onto each straight edge of the snowflake, each of which has an area which must surely add to the original area. Yet this suggests an area that tends to infinity too, which is absurd. Where have I gone wrong?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by hiflier. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.1.6 times that of the previous iteration, surely?
http:// ecademy .agness cott.ed u/~lrid dle/ifs /ksnow/ area.ht m
http://
You have gone wrong where everyone went wrong over the last 2000y in thinking without thinking through the concept of an infinitely long line can enclose a finite space
Same thing for the serenyi sponge - by drilling out bits you can increase the surface area - as the volume goes down. This one I would say is rather obvious (!) as we have been trying for years to increase the surface area for catalysis ( o level chem 1966 ) with a decrease in the amount needed ( esp Pt )
Same thing for the serenyi sponge - by drilling out bits you can increase the surface area - as the volume goes down. This one I would say is rather obvious (!) as we have been trying for years to increase the surface area for catalysis ( o level chem 1966 ) with a decrease in the amount needed ( esp Pt )
Basically, limits are weird. Each one has to be examined on its own, and without any bias beforehand, in order to see how it behaves as things tend to infinity.
Possibly the most simple example to intuit would be comparing the two series
1/1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5 + ...
(sum of reciprocal numbers), which, despite each term getting successively smaller, will never reach a limit ever, and
1/1 + 1/4 + 1/9 + 1/16 + 1/25 + ...
(sum of reciprocal squares), which this time does reach a limit. But that this limit is "pi squared over six" is an answer that hardly leaps out at you. Why the heck would summing square numbers give you something to do with circles? But there you go. Limits are weird.
And they can get weirder still, as limits can be defined in multiple, and subtle, ways. Quite a famous example is that the sum of all whole numbers, 1+2+3+4+5..., etc, is:
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12
as long as you wave your hands over what you mean by "=" here, at least.
Possibly the most simple example to intuit would be comparing the two series
1/1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5 + ...
(sum of reciprocal numbers), which, despite each term getting successively smaller, will never reach a limit ever, and
1/1 + 1/4 + 1/9 + 1/16 + 1/25 + ...
(sum of reciprocal squares), which this time does reach a limit. But that this limit is "pi squared over six" is an answer that hardly leaps out at you. Why the heck would summing square numbers give you something to do with circles? But there you go. Limits are weird.
And they can get weirder still, as limits can be defined in multiple, and subtle, ways. Quite a famous example is that the sum of all whole numbers, 1+2+3+4+5..., etc, is:
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12
as long as you wave your hands over what you mean by "=" here, at least.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.