/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15756974]

what are some good books that introduce mathematics from a more philosophical perspective? where do I start with mathematics?

[Anonymous No.15756989]

> mathematics from a more philosophical perspective

[Anonymous No.15756995]

In order to appreciate the philosophy behind mathematics you first have to understand the mathematics.
Where you start depends on your background. If you're not yet confident with high school knowledge a good place to start is khanacademy or Lang's Basic Mathematics.
From there, move on to basic analysis (for example Tao's books) and algebra (Herstein's books, Stilwell's Elements of algebra)..

[Anonymous No.15756997]

>>15756989
Don't listen to this anon. GEB is not about math but about some very basic logic.
You will hardly learn any mathematics from it.

[Anonymous No.15757248]

>>15756974
B-bros what's the answer?

[Anonymous No.15757259]

Kline's history of mathematics but only once you know basic math

[Anonymous No.15757265]

>>15756974
Bolzanos paradoxes of infinity are what got me into mathematics.

[Anonymous No.15757274]

>>15757248
It's b. Unfold the box into a 2 dimensional object and use the Pythagorean Theorem to confirm.

[Anonymous No.15757288]

>>15756974
Mathematics is Philosophy so as long as you're not doing applied math I think it's safe to say you're engaging with philosophical math. I think you should get a grounding in proofs before you look at the philosophy of it, though. Mathematicians often talk of "math maturity" for good reason, you need to get used to the language and patterns of mathematics before you can do any really good work or thinking on it.
>>15756989
cool book but no
>>15756995
Is Tao's Analysis good? If so this is the one answer. Analysis is such an excellent starting point for Mathematics and I don't think you can appreciate what math *is* before engaging with a good number of rigorous proofs, and Analysis is simply the best place to expose yourself to difficult but possible proofs of that kind.

[Anonymous No.15757313]

>>15757248
I don't know how to prove it formally, but I sketched a numerical proof of sorts. I calculated three fundamental shortest paths across the surface. All other possible paths are in between these paths. Therefore OP is a troll.

[Anonymous No.15757320]

>>15756995
any of lang's other introductory texts worthwhile?

[Anonymous No.15757327]

>>15757313
*longest paths

[Anonymous No.15757340]

>>15757274
wrong. it a point on the top face that is not b. you can tell because if the fly takes a path from front face to top face, the distance to b is sqrt(10), but if the fly goes from front face to right face, it is only sqrt(8). if you move the point across the diagonal from bottom left to top right of the top face, you can make the distance be the same for both paths and it will be somwehere between sqrt(8) and sqrt(10). you know it must be on this diagonal because of the symmertry of the problem. if you stray to the left of the diagonal, the distance gets longer if the flly stays on the visible side of the box, but distance gets shorter if the fly takes a path on the far side of the box.

[Anonymous No.15757416]

>>15757313
what are you trying to prove? It is certainly an essential insight that the shortest path is a true diagonal and along no edge of the cuboid but you don't really have to prove that. How did you get P3 though? I think the lower bound is the diagonal which crosses the rectangle that is the composition of one square and one rectangle instead of two rectangles, and that path would be the diagonal of a rectange 3 by 1, which is root 10. How did you find a path of root 8? The other path is across a rectangle which is 2 by 3, not 2 by 2.

[Anonymous No.15757427]

>>15757416
Honestly dude, I've seen this thing from time to time across 4 months and each time I think about it a bit because I haven't formally proved it. (That is a testament to the importance of formal proofs). However, I do think I have proved it.

It is not possible to have a longest/shortest path that is not in between these other paths. Try on paper what you are talking about, it doesn't pan out. The path always has a flip side that is shorter/longer.

[Anonymous No.15757435]

>>15757248
>>15757274
>>15757313
>>15757340
It is indeed not B, I didn't believe it at first either. Got a good laugh out of me. Very counterintuitive. look up here to get a feeling of the solution.

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2168127/farthest-possible-points-in-a-rectangular-room

[Anonymous No.15757451]

>>15757340
>>15756974
tooks some time to make a shitty drawing. if you can model the problem, it really it 10th grade math and takes 2 seconds. just algebra with polynomals. the square terms even cancel out.

let a and b be the distances of paths a and b

a = sqrt(x^2 + (2+x)^2)

b = sqrt((1+x)^2 + (2+1-x)^2)

set them equal to eachother and square both sides, then simply solve for x.

x^2 + (2+x)^2 = (1+x)^2 + (2+1-x)^2
x^2 + 4+4x+x^2 = 1+2x+x^2 + 9-6x+x^2
2x^2 + 4x + 4 = 2x^2 - 4x + 10
8x = 6
x = 6/8 = 3/4 = 0.75

The distance to the point is then sqrt(8.125), or 2.85

[Anonymous No.15757456]

>>15757427
I'm just saying you have an incorrect lower bound

[Anonymous No.15757460]

not this shit again
the answer isn't important because it's a dumb premise

[Anonymous No.15757463]

>>15757460
pseud detected

[Anonymous No.15757473]

[Anonymous No.15757475]

>>15757451
>using decimals

[Anonymous No.15757492]

>>15757475
i figured /lit/ would be more comfortable with decimals than fractions. they are more tangible and easier to compare for the mathematically uninclined. if you want a fraction, just multiply the final distance by 8, it comes out to sqrt(65/8)

[Anonymous No.15757520]

>>15757463
it would be more accurate to call me a brainlet
tell me why it's an important premise to solve then?

[Anonymous No.15757534]

>>15757520
If math isn't important to you then be on your way. I think it's an incredible way to develop and refine your thinking to be rigorous, but also creative, to come up with unconventional solutions. That's the fundamental benefit of problems like this, and being exposed to enough counter-intuitive problems like this I think really refines a mind.

[Anonymous No.15757582]

>>15757534
Maths has it's use when it's not in a vaccum like this.
I'm talking about the premise itself.
I don't want to feed or work the bug out, I just want to squash it.
If the bug has 150 IQ, then it can work itself out.
Where do I put the food to make it walk the longest?
I put it in my mouth and eat it, not wasting a good bit of pork on a little runty ant fella.
It's never getting it now, so the ant endlessly crawls over the floating tesseract.

[Anonymous No.15757605]

>>15757582
holy shit dude just admit this problem makes you mad because it makes you feel stupid. you don't even know what a tesseract is. you are a total pseud trying to sound smart.

[Anonymous No.15757613]

>>15757605
when I say little runty ant fella I'm not trying to sound smart
jog on wojakposter

[Anonymous No.15757637]

how to get over insecurity around innumeracy and a general lack of confidence with quantities and measures?

[Anonymous No.15757644]

>>15756974
There's no such thing as an introduction to mathematics through a philosophical perspective. Math and philosophy are generally separate, outside of logic.

[Anonymous No.15757654]

>>15757644
are you dumb

[Anonymous No.15757664]

>>15757274
Why would you pick one method of unfolding over the other?

[Anonymous No.15757673]

>>15757313
>>15757435
Cool, thanks bros. Yeah math is not my cup of tea and >>15757274 cup neither.

[Anonymous No.15757678]

>>15757654
How about explaining and refuting what part of my post you disagree with instead of just responding with "are you dumb," you stupid fucking tourist nigger?

[Anonymous No.15757687]

It's up 2 and 1/2 along the top toward the back, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.15757692]

>>15757582
it seems like you didn't read my post, anon
The "math" in question is indeed a riddle, more than a true mathematical proposition. Nonetheless, these propositions have value in helping us grow intellectually. One cannot simply wish themselves into being a great thinker. We have to grapple with ideas, problems and their solutions, and when it comes to math especially, engaging with the really pressing questions of our time is such a herculean effort that we all need toeholds like this along the way.
If you're not a mathematician, say you're a philosopher or a writer, I think expanding your mind by doing puzzles like these can be good for you, but with that said, it makes sense to concentrate on writing or doing whatever is most applicable to your own growth. What you shouldn't do, however, is mistake the "reality" or obvious use of the framing of a question for its inherent worth. Euler invented a Graph Theory, which underpins the internet, through considering a riddle not unlike this with no practical value at the time.
>>15757644
Math is literally a subset of logic and thus a subset of philosophy. It only appears as anything else because it has a broader range of applications than the fields to which it belongs. t. mathematician

[Anonymous No.15757693]

>>15757435
This is not correct.

Pic related is my counterexample. Exact same technique produces a completely different point. There are possibly an infinite amount of points using this technique. The "flattening" layout of the box is arbitrary. The point is the intersection of the grey lines.

My solution (OP is a troll): >>15757313

[Anonymous No.15757698]

>>15757613
no you're trying to sound aloof lmao

[Anonymous No.15757713]

>>15757692
Is there anything which, according to set theory, is not a subset of it?

[Anonymous No.15757719]

>>15757692
>Math is literally a subset of logic
No it's not. If we use this argument then you can say literally anything is logic, including illogical actions, as they are a set of what we might consider the negative of logic, which in itself would be a logical thing.
t. even better appeal to authority

[Anonymous No.15757734]

Is the point that the bug will take a different route than you expect it to? Like, yeah, A->B IS the longest path, but this gigabrained bug will just take a shorter path that gets it to B.

So then you're not trying to maximize the distance between A and some point, but rather you're trying to maximize the shortest possible distance between A and some point.

[Anonymous No.15757757]

>>15757451
How do you prove that the point at which they're equal is best? I get the idea of the lowest being selected, but if I were looking at x and y values on x^2=y and said "which pair has the highest lower value" it wouldn't be 1,1 or 0,0

[Anonymous No.15757764]

>>15757734
>Is the point that the bug will take a different route than you expect it to?
The point is to find the longest path.
>A->B IS the longest path
No it isn't.
>So then you're not trying to maximize the distance between A and some point,
Yes you are.
>maximize the shortest possible distance between A and some point
Retard

[Anonymous No.15757766]

>>15757719
not him, but math is in fact a symbolic logic, and I believe using Frege's work they have shown that arithmetic can be derived from predicate calculus, which is usually what people think of when they think of formal symbolic logic.

[Anonymous No.15757768]

>>15757719
>illogical actions
as much as I agree with this post don't turn logic into the spock thing please

[Anonymous No.15757775]

>>15757713
I have no idea what you're talking about. Set theory as nothing to say about this.
>>15757719
desu I barely care but a philosopher friend of mine made the argument, and the only meaningful argument I know against it is that you can construct first order logic out of mathematical primitives. It certainly isn't your strange argument that because we can *consider* anything with logic that everything *is* logic. The reason philosophy is not all a subset of logic is that some (much) of it doesn't operate on a well defined or well described logic at all. You can describe everything from a cognitive constructivist's perspective but that doesn't make it all a subset of the field.
By contrast mathematics exclusively operates through well defined logical paths. Anything we as mathematicians do is an exercise of logic and is therefore a specialized branch of logic.
BUT none of this classification shit really matters, math is ten times the field philosophy or logic is because it is descriptive and useful.

[Anonymous No.15757782]

>>15757734
She walks diagonally across the face of the box. She can get from A to B in the same length as the height of the box. The trick is to make her walk the longest and most diagonals that she can.

[Anonymous No.15757805]

>>15757734
>Like, yeah, A->B IS the longest path
the longest conceivable path would be to just run in circles and never reach the endpoint, you're conflating simplicity and shortness in at least one way

[Anonymous No.15757814]

>>15757775
>I have no idea what you're talking about
nice credentials then

[Anonymous No.15757831]

>>15757678
based

[Anonymous No.15757841]

>>15757814
You seem to be under the assumption that mathematicians learn all branches of math as preparation for teaching or their specialty. This isn't even close to true. That said, I do know enough about set theory to make me think you don't actually know what it is, since you seem to believe it's a useful tool for making positive statements about the world.

[Anonymous No.15757863]

>>15757766
do you know which work that is?
>>15757775
I'd agree then, but either way, there is still no "philosophical" introduction to math. I don't even know what that would constitute.

[Anonymous No.15757867]

>>15757757
really good question, and after posting I realized it was something i failed to explain though it certainly is a necessary step of the problem solving process so that you know that equating the distances will give you the answer.

as you move the point along the diagonal away from point b in the original picture, in the direction of the arrow in this image, it is obvious that path a gets shorter. it is not obvious from the picture unless you have a really good intuition with pythagorean, but if you graph the length of b vs x using the equation in my other post, you will find that b strictly increases as you move the point away from point b along this diagonal. because a decreases but b increases, you know the point at which they are equal is the furthest point, since moving even the smallest amount to either side along this diagonal will decrease one of the two path lengths.

[Anonymous No.15757871]

>>15757863
Yeah that's exactly what I said in my first post itt

[Anonymous No.15757884]

>>15757867
The simplest visual proof of this be an unfolding of the rectangle and a circle inscribed by the diagonal from a to b. There will be areas of the box uncovered by the circle QED it's not the point.

[Anonymous No.15757894]

>>15757451
This seems wrong to me. My intuition is that the best point is back middle of the top face.

[Anonymous No.15757899]

>>15757871
I've only read the ones you responded to me with, so I probably didn't see it.

[Anonymous No.15757909]

>>15757894
yeah i'm sure it is, the whole point of this problem is to teach you not to trust your mathematical intuition

[Anonymous No.15757918]

>>15757894
the fly could then just crawl across the far side of the box that you can't see in the picture for a distance that is less than sqrt(8)

[Anonymous No.15757944]

>>15757918
True, the figure not appearing proportional fucked me up

[Anonymous No.15757972]

>>15757884
can't believe I didn't realize this. makes it really easy to see without graphing.

[Anonymous No.15757985]

>>15757764
No, the point is to make the bug walk the longest distance you can, and the bug walks the shortest distance it can. You should read the problem before posting, this sort of thing is why you're failing calc 1.

>>15757805
True, but it says to "put the point" thereby implying it's placed and left.

[Anonymous No.15757989]

The furthest distance away from point A that is not necessarily on the box. Make that chigger walk all the way to China.

[Anonymous No.15757993]

>>15757841
No? My point is that is that something which puts everything into sets will inevitably put everything into one. I'm specifically attacking your own usage of the word "subset."

[Anonymous No.15757994]

>>15756974
Just go with Set Theory

[Anonymous No.15758009]

>>15757985
You could make an infinitely long path "to the point" anon. A->B is not a single path in the first place.

[Anonymous No.15758011]

>>15757985
You stupid shit, the distance between A and B is sqrt(6). That's not the longest fucking distance.

Retard.

[Anonymous No.15758013]

>>15757985
>make the bug walk the longest distance you can
>the point is to find the longest path
why are you willingly retarded? you're literally being pedantic over something that any non-autist would assume after having read the problem.

[Anonymous No.15758016]

A put the food in the furthest depths of OP's faggotry.

[Anonymous No.15758023]

>>15756974
"Measurement" by Paul Lockhart.

[Anonymous No.15758035]

OP took over my job of posting this image. Good work, my child.

[Anonymous No.15758043]

>>15758013
Because everyone in the thread seems to have missed this basic fact. You're not trying to find the distance between A and B, nor are you trying to maximize the distance between A and B, you're trying to maximize the distance the bug walks.

You're not trying to solve that problem.

[Anonymous No.15758052]

>>15756974
Philosophy of mathematics by Irving is pretty nice.
Also, I solved your problem for you. The answer is you put the food π(sqrt(10/4π)) ≈ 2.802495608 units away.

[Anonymous No.15758056]

>>15757993
I get that but I think you just don't understand what set theory is. Set theory is not the theory of sets and subsets of just anything, but rather of mathematical primitives and their constructions. The concepts "Mathematics" and "Philosophy" do not belong to and cannot be spoken of using anything which should be called "Set Theory".
Maybe you're thinking of Category Theory? Unless I have your point totally wrong (which is why I said I don't know what you're talking about before you insulted me; I don't fully understand what point you're trying to make) and you're just trying to say Set Theory is the foundation of Mathematics, in which case, sure, but Set Theory is still an application of logic and thus philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15758072]

>>15758052
If you like physics too then Penrose's Road to reality is also excellent. You'd have to do math though.

[Anonymous No.15758075]

>>15758052
>>15758072
>π(sqrt(10/4π))
kek you're a moron and your opinions is discarded.
Think harder before you post.

[Anonymous No.15758094]

>>15758075
Show me your calculations then you little fuck.

[Anonymous No.15758171]

>>15758075
I'm not the dude but why wouldn't you write that as 1/2* sqrt(10pi) lol

[Anonymous No.15758184]

>>15757863
i haven't finished it becuase I lost interest but this seems like a good, easy to read explanation of Frege's theorem
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/frege-theorem/

it seemed to kinda imply that Frege's incorrect Basic Law V was replaced, but they might have also not replaced it. I'm not sure. EIther way they said it wasn't of much importance.

[Anonymous No.15758231]

>>15757692
I just don't like ants
I like questions like these sometimes, but I feel the image was designed to annoy people.
That and saying
>the bug has 150 IQ
makes me want to clock the creator in the jaw.

[Anonymous No.15758244]

>>15758094
Why should I after you have insulted me?
>>15758171
Yes but that's not why he's wrong. There shouldn't be pi at all. He's just a silly man with a silly answer. Ignore him.

[Anonymous No.15758245]

This is such a stupid question.
- Put the box on the ground and then put the food far away from the box, forcing the bug to walk a long distance.
- Put the food on the box, but then move the food away from the bug when it gets close, forcing the bug to keep moving indefinitely.
- Purchase a small treadmill and place the bug on it, putting the food at the front of the treadmill and leave.
- Make somebody on Stack Exchange solve this problem for you while you go out for lunch.

It is no wonder the russkies lost the Cold War. They are wasting all their fucking time and money on solving this kind of crap.

[Anonymous No.15758272]

>>15758245
You think you're funny and smart but in reality this almost exact post has been made dozens of times before in threads about this puzzle. Low IQ.

[Anonymous No.15758288]

>>15758272
Why is it my responsibility to charm and entertain you?

[Anonymous No.15758292]

>>15758244
>refusing to attempt to refute another person's answer to a question because you felt "insulted"
"little fuck" is a compliment.

[Anonymous No.15758330]

>>15758288
Are you saying your post was completely serious? Then you sir, are a confirmed retard.
>>15758292
Apologize then I'll explain.

[Anonymous No.15758345]

>>15758056
>I get that but I want to keep typing OK?
Any definable collection is a set. That's why you can't just respond to Russell with "well, I guess the set of all sets just ain't a thing!" and collect your prize money. Since you need everything to be made explicit, my point is that you're playing a stupid fucking game. Go get a sheet of printer paper. Fold it in half. Lay it flat on a table. Which half is the inside? Which half is the outside? The idea of containment which you are employing to relate acedemic fields is not valid in the first place. Even a three dimentional object is not containing so much as dividing space; the idea of inside versus outside is prescribed. The "this field is that thing" or "that field is this thing" game is just you playing ring around the rosie with entirely vacuous truths in hope of flexing vocabulary.

[Anonymous No.15758353]

>>15758330
Glib little creep. Beady eyed glib little troll. Sweaty smelly pathetic cretin.

[Anonymous No.15758358]

>>15758345
>Any definable collection is a set
kek. Your either a finitard or a plain old retard.

[Anonymous No.15758361]

>>15758353
What's the beef here? Why are you so hostile?

[Anonymous No.15758367]

>>15756974
What Is Mathematics? by Courant and Robbins will likely be of interest to you.

[Anonymous No.15758373]

>>15758358
>Your

[Anonymous No.15758382]

>>15758361
I am sick of you greedy little jews and your mathematical word games. You WILL see the black cube torn to shreds within your lifetime.

[Anonymous No.15758399]

>>15758345
>Fold it in half.
as in "put a fold in the middle," to be super clear on this

[Anonymous No.15758474]

>>15758330
Prove me wrong and I will sincerely apologize darling.

[Anonymous No.15758491]

>>15758474
I clearly said that I won't explain the solution until you apologize for insulting me. Being smarmy won't help you.

[Anonymous No.15758514]

>>15758345
Hey I’m the dude you’ve been replying to. Yeah I’m sorry I wish my philosopher friend was here to articulate the argument. If your proposition is simply that its meaningless to claim math is within philosophy or within logic, then I accept that and don’t know or care enough to dispute it. I don’t think you need to or should appeal to set theory to say so. Also stop being a jerk.

[Anonymous No.15758550]

>>15758491
Why is it so important that I apologize to you? Also, are you an American?

[Anonymous No.15758555]

>>15758550
>Why is it so important that I apologize to you?
Because you insulted me.
>Also, are you an American?
No, why?

[Anonymous No.15758571]

>>15758491
I'm sorry for insulting you.

[Anonymous No.15758590]

>>15758550
>>15758555
you guys are children. i will disprove it by simple contradiction. the furthest point on a sphere of equal surface area of a rectangular prism is not the same distance as the furthest point on a rectangular prism. consider a rectangular prism that has a 1x1 base but is 100 units tall. It has a surface area of 4*100+2*1 = 402. the half circumference of a sphere with that surface area is 17.77, which is the distance between the two furthest points the sphere. However, the distance from base to base of the rectangular prism is 100 units, and the longest distance from the bottom corner to somewhere on the top face must surely be larger than that, since the path must travel 100 units up the height of the prism and then some more across the top face. 100 something units is far from the same as 17.77.

[Anonymous No.15758608]

>>15758571
See pic related.

[Anonymous No.15758653]

>>15758590
>>15758571
>>15758491

I genuinely think this is what the Lyceum must have been like, this exact shit

[Anonymous No.15758741]

>>15757692
>Math is literally a subset of logic and thus a subset of philosophy.
Wrong. While classical mathematics (really a 19th century invention) is basically a long-winded exercise in formal logic, true mathematics is fundamentally about CONSTRUCTIONS, it is based on INTUITION (in a Kantian sense). Logic is SUBSERVIENT to true mathematics.

[Anonymous No.15758823]

>>15758741
lol. Since you've been living under a rock since the 18th century, you might like to know that Kant was wrong about math and logic is no less intuition based than math. these aren't just some anon's conclusions either. Einstein himself agreed with these conclusions and regarded Hume higher than Kant.

[Anonymous No.15758896]

>>15758571
Wasn't me .
>>15758608
For Christ's sake your answer differs by 0.05 from mine >>15758052 and >>15758072
At least show how you fucking calculated it.

[Anonymous No.15758915]

>>15758896
You can verify that my answer is bigger than yours. That shows that indeed you were wrong.
The way you calculate it is you notice the plane of symmetry in the figure that goes through A and the diagonal at the top face. The furthest point must lie on it. But it must also lie on the line where going through the first pattern (middle figure in my pic) gives you the same distance as going through the second one (rightmost figure). Solving this system of equations gives you the point C.

[Anonymous No.15758917]

>>15758823
I do not care what some rinky dink physicist who could barely hack differential geometry thinks of mathematics. Kant was wrong only on details (as Helmholtz showed), but not on the big picture as would be very clear to experts on the problem of space by the mid 20th century.

[Anonymous No.15758945]

>>15758917
Utter pseud

[Anonymous No.15758946]

>>15758330
Go back to Redddit

[Anonymous No.15758969]

>>15758917
lol cope. einstein did philosophy too and his work was in theoretical physics where he broke existing metaphysical conceptions in order to develop his own theories of matter and spacetime and relativity, making him one of the best philosophers of the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.15758997]

>>15758969
Wrong. Geometers were ALWAYS concerned about the metaphysical and physical standing of their work.

[Anonymous No.15759014]

>>15758946
What's redit?

[Anonymous No.15759029]

>>15758608
FUCK OFF. STOP UNFOLDING THE BOX

[Anonymous No.15759055]

>>15757863
>I'd agree then, but either way, there is still no "philosophical" introduction to math. I don't even know what that would constitute
Imagine being this retarded.

[Anonymous No.15759150]

>>15759055
Again: how about explaining and refuting what part of my post you disagree with instead of just responding with "Imagine being this retarded," you stupid fucking tourist nigger?

[Anonymous No.15759390]

>>15757605
DId this nigga really get the /g/ browser extension?

[Anonymous No.15759422]

>>15757644
This. You might as well be asking for books on math from an artistic perspective. Math is math, philosophy is philosophy. If you want to get into math, just learn math you faggot. Stop overcomplicating things.

[Anonymous No.15759427]

>>15759390

[Anonymous No.15759554]

>>15757435
Welp. This is actually correct. For future reference, I have made a master image. For ease of calculation (as the result is in 1/4 units), my box is 4 x 4 x 8. It still doesn't make sense to me for some reason.

(Me) >>15757313

[Anonymous No.15759659]

>>15756974
i dont know how you would work out the exact measurement but i think it would look something like this

[Anonymous No.15759660]

>>15759554
Aren't the two sides in the top right corner redundant? you can either treat those as the two sides in the top left or bottom right corner, except the path is constrained to go through point B for no good reason to get to the A in the top right corner. then you have a symmetric shape again which correctly reflects the symmetry of the problem. then you can look at only one side of the symmetry, leaving you with two paths whose distances you can equate and you end up with the same method as >>15757451

[Anonymous No.15759689]

>>15759660
Not really because you have to compare the longer path. The question is actually extremely mind-fucking without laying out the prism in that exact way because you lose track of the sides. This way the issue is beyond doubt. People (including me) continued to doubt the cruder drawings above despite their being entirely correct.

[Anonymous No.15759731]

>>15759660
In other words, point B's paths are shorter in the top right sides, the "back side" of the prism. The correct point's shortest paths are in the front side.

What is really confusing is what is happening between point B and the correct point. In fact there is a set of paths between the paths for those two points where the back path equals the front paths and vice versa. What exactly is the status of those paths? Because at that point the bug will be indifferent.

[Anonymous No.15760214]

>30 posters
>115 replies
The answer is B. You're not fooling me.

[Anonymous No.15761077]

>>15760214
i agree. it has to be B. all other arguments are nonsense.