Showing posts with label games. Show all posts
Showing posts with label games. Show all posts

Sunday, 5 May 2013

Hexaflexagon Madness

No, I can't hold a candle to Vi Hart's description. Go and enjoy. Then have some nice Mexican food.

But when you stop rolling on the floor holding your stomach, you might ask yourself  'where did the 3rd side come from'? and, well, I might have an answer.



A hexaflexagon is a 2 dimensional object in some sense. As you fold it up into a triangle, preparing to turn, it becomes 3 dimensional, and when it does, you can open it up. What you find is that the triangular pockets formed by the folds held the 3rd side. This 3rd side is inaccessible until you fold it, but when you open it, you are opening those pockets, revealing the hidden triangles. The former front becomes a symmetrically inverted back, and the former back side moves to the inside of the newly-formed pockets.

Another side-effect of the pockets is that if you keep folding and unfolding, effectively turning it inside out over and over again, it will rotate in the plane, without you turning it.

If you're trying to fold one, here's one tip:

You can estimate a 60° angle by carefully lining up the top corner with the bottom edge of the paper strip, as in the pink circle above. At other angles, the corner is either onto the paper or hanging off the edge, but at 60°, it will line up exactly, so long as the sides are straight.

Chirality is important. Make sure you've got three diamonds visible. If you don't, there is probably an up where there should be a down or vice versa.

I haven't quite got the hexa-hexaflexagon down yet, but we'll get there. The description at Hexaflexagon portal is very helpful, particularly the variation A hexa-hexa-flexagon, available as a PDF.

Oh, yeah, and while you're contemplating your notebook paper:

You didn't think that 9 1/2 x 11 inches was an international standard, did you? Guess what. Most of the rest of the world uses a different 'system', um, like an actual systematic system. The equivalent 'letter' size is A4, but we also have A1 (poster sized), A7 (index card), and other variously-sized characters in between. These sizes have the nicely chosen aspect ratio so that, $L/W = \sqrt{2} = 0.707 $... but that would be irrational, so they have to round off a bit.



This doesn't look very useful until you take the ratio of  $\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}$. Remember how to divide fractions involving roots? The bit you need to recall is that $2$ is just $\sqrt{2}\times\sqrt{2}$. This means that  $$ \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} = \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{2}\sqrt{2}} = \frac1{\sqrt{2}} $$ when you simplify by canceling like terms on top and bottom. Then, taking the ratio of the long: short sides gives $$ 1: \frac1{\sqrt{2}} $$ Multiplying both sides by $\sqrt{2}$ gives a simpler form, which happens to be the same ratio as the original, large piece of paper: $$ \sqrt{2}:1$$ And no matter what the paper size, the math still works. Now that's a system. Folding an A4 and rotating 90° gives an A5, etc. As always, wikipedia is your friend.

A4 is 21.0 x 29.7 cm, so it's narrower than US Letter paper by 1.23 inches. Which is a perfectly sized strip for hexaflexagon folding.

I haven't decided on whether or not to hold a hexaflexagon party. It might have to wait until next October.




Saturday, 2 February 2013

Programming with Mommy

Sometimes the things you do turn around and bite you, and sometimes they make you smile.

So this afternoon I was watching this video in which Greg Wilson talks about programming techniques, programming fashions and the importance of evidence in deciding what to do and how to go about it. There's a section in the middle about the "why-women-can't-be-good-programmers" debate, and he mentions this book, which discusses it at length, with evidence.

So I got to thinking about coding and myself and my daughter. And it just so happens that we were chatting about Angry Bird this morning:
P:  Mommy, did you have Angry Birds when you were little?
S:  No... no, we didn't have anything like Angry Birds. We could listen to music on tapes or records; we could watch television. There weren't many computers. There weren't any videos or CD's. I remember the 1st video game. It came out when I was about 15. Actually, I can show you what it looked like... 

So we went and looked at 'Paddle Ball' at Khan Academy.

It's not the original Pong (nor is it the version that I remember seeing at a friend's house -- that was probably on an Atari VCS). It is close enough to that game that she could get the idea: not Angry Birds. And she could get another idea -- there was the code on the left side of the screen, and we could change it. We could make the ball pink, the background red, the paddle purple. We could change the sizes of the objects, and their speeds. We could interact with the game in a different way, and we did.

So my daughter got her introduction to programming at age 4.