←back to thread

594 points robinhouston | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.569s | source
Show context
ColinWright ◴[] No.44385633[source]
The paper says:

"What did appear as a challenge, though, was a physical realization of such an object. The second author built a model (now lost) from lead foil and finely-split bamboo, which appeared to tumble sequentially from one face, through two others, to its final resting position."

I have that model ... Bob Dawson and I built it together while we were at Cambridge. Probably I should contact him.

The paper is here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.19244

The content in HTML is here: https://arxiv.org/html/2506.19244v1

replies(1): >>44387114 #
s4mbh4 ◴[] No.44387114[source]
Would be awesome to see some pictures!
replies(1): >>44387459 #
ColinWright ◴[] No.44387459[source]
I've knocked up a quick page:

https://www.solipsys.co.uk/ZimExpt/MonostableTetrahedron.htm...

replies(1): >>44387550 #
gus_massa ◴[] No.44387550[source]
I was expecting to see the photos, but the jpg are linked there instead of visible. IIRC you were using a self-made CMS for your blog, with more support for math formulas. Does it not allow images?
replies(1): >>44387565 #
ColinWright ◴[] No.44387565[source]
Everyone complains about how crap my website is, so in this case I've just exported a page from my internal zim-wiki. Yes, it can have photos, but it doesn't give any control over sizing or positioning, so I'm providing links for people to click through to.

It's the middle of my working day and I'm in the middle of meetings, so I don't have time to do anything more right now.

replies(3): >>44387677 #>>44387987 #>>44389376 #
1. jabiko ◴[] No.44387987[source]
To be fair, I don't think there is anything wrong with clickable links instead of embedded images.
replies(1): >>44388154 #
2. SoftTalker ◴[] No.44388154[source]
I don't mind the image links. The text weight and contrast could use some work.