Jay's posterous

« Back to posts

Viewed
times

December 26, 2009

Solve for pizza

Edit
Delete
Tags
Autopost

145 responses
Like
Comment

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

pi * z *z * a? What is that, a spherical cube? Inexcusable. pi*a*z^2

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

Yeah, z^(2) IS z*z
Pi*z*z would give the area *a would give the volume.
Pi*z*z*a is correct.

about 2 years ago D Day responded:

Pizza just became even more awesome. Thank you for this.
@Mark... huh-wha? *slap* *slap*

about 2 years ago ggomez91 (Twitter) responded:

Yeah mark... inexcusable <- lol

about 2 years ago codysolders (Twitter) responded:

I love when people do that to themselves.........

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

actuaaallly Mark is right because pi*z*z*a would indeed suggest a spherical cube. if OP put V=pi*a*z^2 and then V=pi*z*z*a it would be better. Unless you're walter rudin then you can do w/e you want.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

a pizza is a shallow cylinder, buds
trust me. i like pizza

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

What's the equation for a Chicago Deep Dish Pizza?

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

pi*z*z*a is the exact same thing as pi*a*z^2
z^2=z*z

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

A spherical cube? That makes no geometrical sense. By definition, that shape cannot exist.
Try again.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

Mark, Matthew - liberal arts majors? Just guessing. The volume of a sphere is 4/3*pi*r^3 (or 4/3*pi*z*z*z). The volume of a "spherical cube"? Perhaps you could show us one, along with some dry water.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

nerds

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

lol @ Mark and Matthew trying to argue multiplication semantics.

about 2 years ago thejammer responded:

David, nope not a sphere, a cylinder. DUH Why would a pizza be spherical??

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

Cool.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

Oh wow,this looks like a lot of fun dude.

RT
www.privacy-resources.es.tc

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

David, both of them are probably on a completely different level of intelligence than you are on.

about 2 years ago maticus responded:

OK, so a pizza can be thought of as a cylinder. The formula to calculate the volume of a cylinder is V=pi * radius^2 * height

So......

V = pi * (z * z) * a

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

So Mark is wrong.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

Order of operations does not matter when everything is multiplied. V=pi*z*z*a = pi*(z*z)*a = pi*z^2*a = (pi*z)*z*a = etc. = etc.

Mix it up as much as you want, as long as there is no other operation like addition, subtraction, or division you don't have to worry about order of operations. Mark, Matthew G, and maticus get epic math FAIL.

about 2 years ago Renee_RR (Twitter) responded:

I know that Pizza = full

about 2 years ago andreask responded:

Mark and Facebook User... you are poster children for why American mathematics education is bad/unacceptable and you are both just plain STUPID. (Facebook User how you even know who Rudin is boggles my mind - I'm certain that such a brilliant individual would never speak to you after reading what you wrote)

First off, what is a spherical cube? Produce something that is a cube (by definition all sides & edges equal) and spherical (like a basketball - e.g. NO SIDES) and I will believe you that such a thing exists.

Second, multiplication, a commutative binary operation over a field (if you even know what that is), does not give any precedence to the order in which the terms are written and does imply anything about what you are computing. Oh, yeah, that's what COMMUTATIVE means - you can move the stuff around!

Please revisit your school district and ask for a REFUND! They have failed you pretty hard by allowing you to be so stupid!

about 2 years ago alexadoll responded:

http://static.newworldencyclopedia.org/thumb/a/ab/Square_on_sphere.png/200px-Square_on_sphere.png

Spherical cube

about 2 years ago dendari (Twitter) responded:

353736b8-3da3-4327-9d5f-9690bd71d88c_normal

A spherical cube is a Mathematical theory that finds patterns from objects such as distant stars. (stars being round and the patterns being basic squares I assume)

That being said I really don't understand what the difference between Pi*a*z^2 and Pi*z*z*a as long as a is clearly defined as the height of the cylinder and z is clearly defined as the radius of the circle.

As well as the final formula being define as an equation (Volume=Pi*z*z*a) and not just and expression (Pi*z*z*a)

about 2 years ago andreask responded:

"/Square_on_sphere.png" - read the file name before you post the link...

Just to clarify for you a square (2 dimensional) != cube (3 dimensional)... keep trying though, it's amusing.

about 2 years ago jbuckets responded:

actually since the crust is usually not the same height as the rest of the pie the real math would be a lot more complicated

about 2 years ago andreask responded:

Oh, the difference between crust height and the cheese is a layer of complexity that I do not think some readers of this article can even begin to fathom... this website makes me sad.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

For Jay's post, this is awesome...for those who are arguing about squares, cubes, exponential equations, and the like, the real humor is that you have failed to understand the meaning behind this...

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

Well, I DO like Pizza...

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

While I agree with andreask that mark and facebookuser should go back to school, I don't like his tone and before trying to teach other people about math, you should know that there is indeed something called a spherical cube in non-euclidean geometry.

http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/s/Square_%28geometry%29.htm

Math Teacher

about 2 years ago y ho responded:

People like you make me happy. <3

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

You know what defines intelligence? An intelligent person laughs at a pretty amusing joke like this. A not-so-intelligent person jumps at the chance to look like an idiot by over analyzing humour and dropping math terminology that they barely seem to understand.

about 2 years ago andreask responded:

Dear Math Teacher,

Indeed, you have offered a proof of existence, I concede such a shape exists! But it has nothing to do with a pizza in our world (a Euclidean space)...

Let's review a definition/idea; "A non-Euclidean geometry is characterized by a non-vanishing Riemann curvature tensor—it is the study of shapes and constructions that do not map directly to any n-dimensional Euclidean system." [thanks wikipedia!]

So please EDUCATE me as to how you are using the aforementioned non-Euclidean shape to describe the volume of an object in Euclidean space? Furthermore, tell me what the definition of this shape is in Euclidean space; after all, the pizza and I live in a world measured using the Euclidean metric. I would really like to know how you achieve such a feat..

Thank you for supporting stupidity.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

Most of you are all dorks, find something better to do with your life than deconstructing a joke. Get a life!

about 2 years ago andreask responded:

Dear Teresa,

I apologize for directly addressing what I saw as a gross misunderstanding of basic Euclidean geometry - you are correct; true intelligence is letting stupid people stay stupid - it keeps them "smart folks" in better shape.

Indeed, I do barely understand mathematics myself (after all what is a published paper in Algebra worth (Algebra is when you add stuff, and maybe divide, right?)...), so I really should not be educating anyone. I'll have to go back to my University and return my degree... I'm a total failure :(

Thank you for showing me how "not-so intelligent" I am.

about 2 years ago andreask responded:

Wait, I said add stuff, I meant it is when you "plus" stuff and "times" it.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

actually andreask, the large cylinders in MY world (usually you wouldn't bother on a pizza, but that doesn't make it inappropriate) is often considered in non euclidean space.

In simple terms, that is, when I put the pizza down, I often consider as the ground is flat, not curved, but technically that's wrong. Think of it this way. Take a "flat" rope. Then put two more "flat" ropes at the ends, at a right angle. You would say that these are parallel, but if they were super long, then they would touch. So my assumption is bad. Rather than call them non-parralel, I can instead switch to a non-euclidean geometry. If the pizza was sufficiently large, I would likely begin operating in a non euclidean space.

about 2 years ago andreask responded:

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the size of most pizzas is several magnitudes off of sufficiently large to use non-Euclidean geometry to determine the volume (and I would certainly not say a pizza is a large cylinder)... but I understand your point that the earth/ground is indeed curved (and agree that that is a valid point).

about 2 years ago maticus responded:

I find this whole comment's section hilarious.

about 2 years ago Jay Fallon responded:

Wow, this is brutal. I mistakenly email a borrowed image from B3ta to the wrong account and it receives over 100k views, not to mention the um, comments.

about 2 years ago facehead responded:

Great post Jay!

To andreask,

Yikes. Just by reading your words I can already assume you are a rather unlikeable person. Calling people stupid on a comment section? That is quite the pathetic gesture. The intent of the post was to be humorous, which you have obviously missed. Did you know that in certain jokes the joke teller isn't claiming that a horse, a priest and a rabbi actually walked into a bar?

I would rather have an actual pizza over whatever degree you have and are trying to flaunt. The only thing I would even remotely desire doing with the paper your degree is on would be to wipe the pizza sauce from my face. Not one person who has commented here is impressed by your "accolades'.

Since you are such an amazing mathlete, maybe you can offer your musings on a few simple facts involving numbers: not one person here will care about you after you die, and most are excited at the thought of your decomposition. You, like the number that is two million places to the right of the decimal point in pi, are an insignificant number to most people on this planet and will forever remain so.

Congratulations! Everyone hates you.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

lol.game, set, match.

about 2 years ago andreask responded:

Dear facehead,

Please learn what "accolades" means and how to use it correctly in a sentence.

And yes, I'm oh-so-super lonely and have no friends and only enemies - you are right... It's so sad and lonely i just don't know what to do. No need for an assumption that I'm not well-liked; it's a fact! (Check your Snapple caps; it's there!)

Your morbid (you can use a dictionary to find out what that word means) commentary was unnecessary, but was thoroughly enjoyed and amusing. Thank You!!! I'm glad to know that people are concerned with my decomposing body; sounds sexy.

"You, like the number that is two million places to the right of the decimal point in pi, are an insignificant number to most people on this planet and will forever remain so." - That's a number from the set {0,...9} - I guess we could just get rid of one of them... you know, the insignificant one you mentioned. You meant to say digit, but it's OK I wuv you anyway. Thank You!!!

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

It's a joke. Find me one good reason why it should be 100% mathematically correct.

about 2 years ago facehead responded:

Dear andreask,

(I'm making this a formal response just like you!)

Oh, gee I made a typo. I am orthographically challenged and I had better start loading a gun now. My mistake pales in comparison to the one your parents made when they decided to keep the pregnancy.

Snapple caps? Really? Could you be more (you might enjoy this) obtuse? Oh and by the way, improper grammar and orthography happens to be something I now have in common with the likes of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Jane Austen, Benjamin Franklin, Shakespeare and Chaucer. Pretty good company.

You can use an encyclopedia to find out who those folks are.

If you are taking issue with the usage of "number" instead of "digit" and not the fact that people want you to stop living, you have just participated in making an absolute joke of your existence. Congratulations again!

Maybe there will be someone at your funeral to retell your little gem, but I doubt it. Don't bother typing one word in response. Just let it go and take your rightful place as the latrine of an internet post.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

The comments section is the real joke here. I love the internet.

about 2 years ago KaliInferno (Twitter) responded:

Dunno about the rest of you that don't work in a container production facility, but a cube given a spherical curve is called a cylinder. We even have form machines that specifically tell you what spherical arc to put on the marked surfaces to be reshaped to create a desired cylinder. We can even give the bottoms and tops a spherical curve, convex or concave!

So say it doesn't exist all you want, you're dead wrong.

Also, standard geometry will not work for a pizza. There are too many actual imperfections and irregularities to get a proper answer with such simple (or even complex) mathematics.

So, no, pizza will not solve itself. Never has, never will.

Oh, and a last lesson - Pizza is chinese - the Italians did nothing - the tomato sauce was added by the Romans.

Common sense prevails.

about 2 years ago andreask responded:

Which of the following does not belong:
"F. Scott Fitzgerald, Jane Austen, Benjamin Franklin, Shakespeare, Chaucer, facehead"

Hrm, that last one seems a bit suspicious... Maybe when you write a literary classic you can call those folks your company. Until then you are a nobody. Welcome to reality, sorry but you are not a literary genius.

Don't associate yourself where you don't belong.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

I agree, these comments are a little deep for a post about pizza! Nice observation tho, excellent geek material.

about 2 years ago facehead responded:

Again andreask, you don't get it. Look up the word facetious.

Which of the following does not belong:

AIDS, death by sodomy, genital mutilation, andreask.

Answer? Genital mutilation. Because some people actually like it.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

"I agree, these comments are a little deep for a post about pizza!"

What if we're discussing deep dish pizza? The "a" term would be so large we'd have to call it PizzA!

about 2 years ago andreaskislame responded:

lol at andreask and his napoleon complex

about 2 years ago Connor Scalleat responded:

V = pi r^2 h |
V | volume
r | radius
h | height
(volume of a solid right circular cylinder of finite height)

But this is a not a normal cylinder it is a cylinder with raised edges and a cut out middle thus the formula will not work.

about 2 years ago nataliajordan (Twitter) responded:

for those of you who like pizza and maths, http://bit.ly/8r0fee

about 2 years ago dendari (Twitter) responded:

Now see for those who claim that a pizza is not a true cylinder because the edges are higher than the middle you haven't eaten Chicago thin crust.
Of course you can also scale the pizza down to microscopic level and find that the pizza might actually be remarkable smooth. Similar to the idea that if you shrank the earth down to the size of a billiard ball. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/08/ten-things-you-dont-know-about-the-earth/
But I am enjoying the comments keep them going.

about 2 years ago dj6ual responded:

Can there even be a right answer? LOL! Lets try...

Answer: "Breadsticks"

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

Since this whole thing about the true volume is starting to bother me, I'll go ahead and attempt to derive a formula for calculating the true volume of the pizza. For sanity's sake we'll assume the pizza and its crust are completely smooth. We can then add the volume of the crust to the volume of everything circumvented by the crust and get this: V = (z-a)^2*x*pi + [integral from 0 to 2*pi] [integral from 0 to 2*pi*z] [integral from (z-a) to z] .5 dr dh d(theta), where r, h, and theta are the cylindrical coordinates of the crust. 2*pi*z is the circumference of the pizza and therefore the length of the crust if it were cut away and laid in a straight line, making it the "height" of the cylindrical crust, "a" is assumed to be the distance from the top of the crust to the plate, and "x" is the distance from the top of the inner pizza to the plate. Is this about right, fellow mathematicians?

about 2 years ago Brian Webster liked this post.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

Jeebus Crust!!.. That last post lost me a bit... For my intent and purpose, being to roughly know it's total volume so I know how many slices will fit in my stomach, what about just using a "line of best fit" through all the points denoted by the crust and various toppings? In my case, that would be artichoke halves, semi-dries tomato's, Gorgonzola, Spanish onion, and wild mushrooms, so don't tell me I'm copping out like with a Margherita or something...

kthxbi

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

I came for the picture, stayed for the comments.
I am looking forward to the sequel, where 2+2 will be proven to be 5.

about 2 years ago Moksh Juneja responded:

Why does cooking and eating also has maths!! I hate math!! realised, it yesterday when the ratio of the ingredients wasnt right!! and now this!!

about 2 years ago glassfrog responded:

Mark Aligbe, you used the communicative property of multiplication unnecessarily. Plus, while not being completely simplified, the original equation passes the smell test. Your critique, however, does not. 10 x 5 = 5 x 10 and P x P = P^2. You suck. Please tell me you're an English major.

about 2 years ago Jeff Canton liked this post.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

haha.... i love the comments. this is great.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

Mark and Matthew, I'll give you a B+ and everyone else, an A-. The correct answer is Ch=i.ck.en. Oh wait, that's totally wrong. If I carry the one and do some long division... wait its... H4mBuRg.3.R.... Ugh, I don't know. You geniuses are too good for me!

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

I think the first poster may have meant circular prism instead of spherical cube. It's kind of sad how quickly this turned into a douche-off.

I'm sure all of your mothers think you are all very smart and very special. You don't have to try to make other people feel bad anymore.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

"Your morbid (you can use a dictionary to find out what that word means)" -andreask
HAHAHA, best line from these comments. i hate adding to all this...but its "you're" andreask. let's just end all of this....if you were truly intelligent you wouldn't be wasting your time on the internet arguing with strangers.

ps: i am happy to have seen this image....but i'm even happier to witness the labia flapping contest going on in the comments:) and now that i have stirred the pot, i wish all you internet strangers the best. please continue for my amusement.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

andreask - I don't know you, but somehow I think I already hate you. I mean, I have no natural rooting interest in the comments thread for a dumb joke on the internet. Yet for some reason, as I worked my way down the page, I found myself immediately rooting against you. Hoping you were wrong. Or if you weren't wrong, hoping at least that someone would figure out a way to show you how you were coming across to the rest of us reading the comments. It was the only reason I even kept reading. But it didn't happen. So this is my attempt. You are almost a parody. Again... I don't even know you, but as I was reading, I kept having fantasies of finding you in person and causing you physical harm. That can't be a good sign for what kind of a person you are. I didn't set out to hate you. It just happened. And it didn't happen with any of the other people who left comments, I only hated you. My guess is that they all feel the same way I do. You took an innocent, (somewhat)funny thing and ruined it. Almost to the point where it became funny again but for an entirely different reason. But you can't see it. I am not writing this to be mean, I am just being completely honest. If you could somehow zoom out a little bit, and see yourself through an unbiased lens, I don't think you would like what you saw. I bet if you watched a movie about your life but you didn't know that the mathematical douchebag character was based on you, you would hate him just as much as the rest of us.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

credit whre credit's due please, say thanks to zeitgeist
http://www.b3ta.com/board/9845550

about 2 years ago Carlos Vigil responded:

By Edwin: I came for the picture, stayed for the comments.
I am looking forward to the sequel, where 2+2 will be proven to be 5.

+1

Get a sense of humor people!

about 2 years ago BryanJWatson (Twitter) responded:

Current Length of andreask's ePenis:
|====================================================================|

about 2 years ago jijujohnson (Twitter) responded:

Since every1 is adding, me too... I can see through Mark Aligabe. He took z*z*a to be vol of cube (technically a cuboid)

about 2 years ago jijujohnson (Twitter) responded:

And then intended to make fun saying multiplication of pi made the cube into a sphere. don't think he was ready or expected the backlash. The rest of the comments have been enlightening though - Mostly about people's perception of fundamental geometry rather than geometry itself.

Being an engineer, I am allowed to approximate things. I hereby approximate the pie (see, even that word lends itself to pi) is a perfect, smooth right circular cylinder and hence can use the cylindrical volume formula for all practical purposes.

Lol!!

about 2 years ago TMNinja liked this post.

about 2 years ago aprestia responded:

I proudly declare that I really and truly love andreask. That is not sarcasm, I do, although possibly only because the rest of you hate him so much. I don't understand why you feel the need to take everything on the internet so personally. Andreask is the only person on here who HASN'T made a mathematical or grammatical or logical error of any sort that I can see and it seems to irk all the rest of you just BECAUSE. As Danny Savage said, you all only kept reading and fighting in hopes that he would make a mistake and the more he didn't the angrier you got. True, no one is perfect, but I find it incredibly refreshing to find SOMEONE on the internet who is intelligent enough and puts enough time and thought into what they say that they don't make any errors.

And Alex Brandt, the original sentence was actually "Your morbid () commentary," so the possessive is in fact correct. Forgive me for making an example out of this but it's errors like that which give fuel to these fires, if you are one of those who legitimately wants the bickering to stop. Then again, I think virtually all of you like the bickering and REALLY like being righteously outraged by the whole thing so that advice will probably fall on deaf ears.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

Can anyone say flame war!
Holy crap... grow a sense of humor already...

about 2 years ago Steve Moser liked this post.

about 2 years ago dendari (Twitter) responded:

I am very much enjoying the commentary, please don't stop

about 2 years ago Shawn Coons responded:

Exhibit A (see above): Why dumb people procreate faster than smart people.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

I agree with everything aprestia said about andreask. Even the psychopath Danny Savage-who desires to inflict physical harm on andreask just because he doesn't like what andreask has to say-admits that andreask isn't mistaken. Keep it up andreask!

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

Tub of water (large enough for said pizza) is X. X - Pi*z*z*a = V! There is your accurate volume of pizza, although beit soggy as hell now!

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

Additionally, if 1/3 = .333333333inf and 2/3 = .666666666inf then 1/3 + 2/3 = .333333333inf + .666666666inf (simplified) 1 = 0.9.

about 2 years ago Marc Boquet liked this post.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

i can't believe i just woke up and read all these stupid comments. FIrst off grow up its a joke you lame asses who take this serious. And those of you with to much pride you just need to grab that pride by the neck and shove it up your asses. But seriously facehead andreask THIS IS THE FUKIN INTERNET WHO GIVES A FUK ABOUT SPELLING GRAMMER CHAUCER WHO THE FUK IS BENJAMIN FRANKLIN SEE I WRITE FUK AND U KNOW WAT IT IS UNLESS UR SUM RETARDED FUK WHO CAN'T READ WAT IM TYPING I DON'T GIVE A FUK IF U GUYS WANT TO B SO UP THE ASS IF U GUYS REALLY WANT TO B SO FORMAL AND LOOK UP SHIT GO WRITE A PAPER THE INTERNET BLOG IS NOT FOR THE LIKES OF U lol well that was fun and don't reply just stfu i hope u know wat that is o and i have to say no wonder the worlds going to the dumps people like us readind stupid hilarious shit and argueing about who can be a bigger dipshit than the other guy and i think i win

about 2 years ago jijujohnson (Twitter) responded:

How important is being perfect anyway? All human perfection is defined to an assumed approximation. Some people have more significant digits, that's all.

@Joseph Hart refining the tub of water formula, we probably would need the following corrections:
Initial Volume of Water - Final Volume of Water + Water sqeezed out of soggy Pizza = Pi*z*z*a

@Howie Lee, What exactly are you angry about? The assumed perfectionism of your antagonists, or the fact that you read the entire conversation right out of your sleep and didn't get any closure? Lol!!

about 2 years ago dmoon57 responded:

mr pibb + pizza = crazy delicious

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

andreask,

You may have excellent grammar. You may even be, according to conventional standards, "smart." Congratulations.

Just know that it's condescending assholes like you who make this world shitty.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

I didn't say I wanted to inflict harm, I said I found myself fantasizing about it. I can recognize that having a smug, condescending tone in the way you interact with the world doesn't necessarily warrant a beating, it just makes you an obnoxious and unpleasant human. But I do think that if you habitually treat people with a total lack of respect and a snobbishly patronizing attitude, that at some point you should (and will) encounter physical consequences. I don't think that makes me a psychopath. Everyone has watched a movie with a pretentious big mouthed jerk in it who is always belittling everyone around him, and hoped that at some point his timid younger brother would finally reach a breaking point and punch him in the mouth. It's human nature. You feel relieved when it finally happens. You think, "See, that's what you get for being a jerk", like justice has finally been served, and the jerk learns his lesson. Well on the internet there is no justice. The only lesson learned is that with no immediate consequence for jerky behavior people like andreask run free. I wasn't upset that andreask was right, or that he didn't make any grammatical or mathematical mistakes. I was mad that he got away with being an unprovoked dick to so many people without facing any real repercussion. I bet he isn't quite so overbearing in his day to day life though, because at some point, someone probably gave him a good reason not to be.

about 2 years ago facehead responded:

If you read earlier posts you will see he was confronted by many people voicing similar complaints (at length no less), myself included. He stopped replying once overwhelming evidence of unabashed hatred flew at his stupid face. I hope his genitals rot off. Total anus.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

love to eat pizzzzzzzzzzzzzaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasssssssss

about 2 years ago mathias (Twitter) responded:

Also, a box with height b, width o and length x has a volume of b*o*x.

about 2 years ago William Meloney liked this post.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

Hahaha! I love pizza! Good one! Thumbs up!

about 2 years ago Bama Poly Bi Guy 1 liked this post.

about 2 years ago andreask responded:

I am still waiting for an actual argument or a logical fallacy of mine to be exposed. It's amusing to see exactly how many dumb people there are on the Internet.

Thank you all for showing me why getting a job in this economy only took me a week... it's easy when your competition is retarded! Seriously, all of you, thank you!

about 2 years ago andreask responded:

And to Alex Brandt; you are an idiot sir! The contraction you're is for "you are." Now for contradiction let's assume you were correct, the sentence now reads "You are morbid commentary" - please think before speaking/writing. Thanks!

about 2 years ago facehead responded:

Ahahaha ! Strangers hate you automatically, and want you to die. Not one person believes you enjoy that. Fewer time spent studying math and a little more time spent examining the psychology of our species should suit you. Unless you are a sociopath, you are not 'thankful' for the surge of hatred directed at your pathetic life.

Without the free exchange of ideas between humans who don't wish death upon one another, most mathematical information you have retained would not exist. Look up the word 'collegiality' please. It will not exist in your life because everyone everywhere hates you. Especially those smarter than you, and there are plenty (whether it be on an internet post or at the university you were also likely met with hatred). You have failed in every way. Right or wrong you will die alone and your genitals will still be tiny and untouched.

Hell even Einstein enjoyed the opposite sex. Enjoy paying for your time with them.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

Jeez, guys, why all teh hate? just agree to disagree and move on. -.- Although I must admit, I DID have fun reading these, and I completely agree with the e-peen comment =)

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

Actually Pizza was solved long ago with the famous Pizza=Delicious equation.

about 2 years ago NichtsTunka (Twitter) responded:

2 + 2 does in fact equal 5.

The first thing that has to be done to the equation is the conversion of the additive into a multiplicative statement, as shown below:

2+2 = 4 = 2*2

Thus, based on this we can surmise that 2+2 is equal to 2*2. If the two equations are equal to each other, they can be substituted into any other equation without affecting the final answer in any way. I'll leave it up to you guys to confirm that on your own if you don't believe me.

Substituting 2*2 for 2+2 into the original equation will yield the following equation:

2*2=5

Nonsense, right? Well - it's not. What is assumed here is that the whole equation is to the power of zero.

On the left side we have:

(2^0) * (2^0) = (1) * (1) = 1

And on the right side we have:

(5^0) = 1

Therefore, both sides of the equation are equal to 1 and so 2*2 AND 2+2 are both equal to five.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

This made my day. So much hatred concentrated into so little space. Beautiful.

Also, 2+2=5. Holy god.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

"I am still waiting for an actual argument or a logical fallacy of mine to be exposed."

why? a poster already demonstrated what a spherical cube is, and your definition of multiplication is wrong (multiplication is not necessarily commutative nor over a field: many sets of matrices, quaternions, octonions, etc - it just happens to be commutative and over a field here because we're talking about the reals). the only thing you correctly stated in your initial post was that multiplication is a binary operation.

at this point, you're just a troll who thinks they're smarter than they actually are. everything you've said has either held no academic merit, even if you persist as though it does, has been an awkward attempt to pass over your mistakes, or has been an attack on other posters.

you want a logical fallacy? defining multiplication with something that is defined with multiplication itself.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

Anybody figure out what pizza*pizza comes out to?

donssite.com

about 2 years ago jijujohnson (Twitter) responded:

Lol, I can't believe this is still going on. For all the andreask-esque commentators basking in their own glory - regardless of your claimed unfailing logic or your manipulation of theoretical mathematics to fit this discussion, we all know you acknowledge Mark Aligabe's original comment about the spherical cube to be completely baseless and ignorant.

The equation shown has a picture (oh, you missed that?!) which unambiguously displays the domain of the equation to be in normal cartesian coordinates. This automatically precludes any incorrect assumptions otherwise.

I'd love to see how you twist yourself out of the quagmire of your own self importance.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

Oh forget it, let's order Chinese!

about 2 years ago y ho responded:

@Don Andrews
pizza*pizza=calzone
:D

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

@NichtsTunka

That...was....awesome.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

Although you proved that 1*1=1 not 2+2=5. If you take both sides of any equation whatsoever to the power of 0, you can make the same assumption...

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

thank you andreask. i was reading all the comments about people trying to figure out which one is correct and i spent the entire time thinking "how in the world do these people not know multiplication is commutative?" so much so that i linked this thing with my facebook just to say that and then i saw what you said. come on people seriously? 4+3=3+4 it doesnt matter how you write it, it always comes out the same!

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

I wonder if Mark Aligbe knows what he spawned with his first comment...

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

This is fantastic. I just occupied (occupied, not wasted; mind you) 15 minutes of my time reading through these comments. Oh I do love narcissistic assholes :D

about 2 years ago NPersinger (Twitter) responded:

So far all I see is attacks on grammar and no actual mathematical argument. Neither of you (facehead + andreask(by the way is that andre ask or andrea sk?)) are arguing at your own level. You just keep bringing the other down a notch in intelligence. To clarify: "You're an insignificant number." "You mean digit." Here's the kicker; I learned it as figure! Sig. Fig. sounds a lot better than Sig. Num. too.

about 2 years ago DedSlowMike (Twitter) responded:

This is my first ever Twitter and I think I've just lost the will to live.Come friendly bombs.......!!

about 2 years ago d4rchangel (Twitter) responded:

Just lol. Best 15 minutes of the day.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

If y = the height of the pizza from the pan to the median height of the cheesy middle (sans crust),
and s = the radius of the pie from the center to the inner edge of the crust
then the volume of the pizza is:

(pi * z * z * a) - (pi * s * s * y)

Let's leave the pissy comments out of this discussion, please.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

Whoops, that's not right. How about?:

(pi * s * s * y) + ((pi * z * z * a) - (pi * s * s * y))

I ain't no math major :P

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

in regards to aprestia's comment:
I don't think people are necessarily irked because andreask can't be proved wrong, I think it's because of the way he was going about it. Even if you are right there's really no need to mock others for simple errors or because you think you're smarter. It just makes him look extremely arrogant to brag about whatever degree he has achieved.
to andreask:
I say congratulations, you might be correct. Heck if I know, I'm not the best at math, but I'm just fine in other subjects. Take your victory and walk away, it's the internet. There's only so much you can accomplish by arguing with complete strangers.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

I think that with the use of a laser scanner, and not taking density into account, we could in fact scan the pi*z*z*a and create a computer generated image of the deliciousness. Once we have the computer image, we simply run a program to determine the true nature of the volume of pI*z*z*a. DONE!

about 2 years ago KottonQueen (Twitter) responded:

NOM NOM NOM PIZZA!!!!!!

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

so.... i just read this and... is the picture right or not?

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

Well, andreask, you did say that a sphere has no sides, when it actually has one. So that's not true... I think Mark may be clueless at maths, but he has the good sense to visit here once and leave! School is also a good place to learn about interacting with other people...

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

The difference between finding the volume of a pizza using the equation for a cylinder and 'complex' mathematics is pretty trivial.

But, I'm a calculus junkie, sooo for my enjoyment, finding the volume more precisely would be easier using calculus to find the volume if you were to define it thus:

2π z [inside height] 2π a r
∫ ∫ ∫ r dy dr dØ + ∫ ∫ ∫ r dr dy dØ
0 0 0 0 0 [inner radius of crust]

this is assuming a crust with square corners, which is of course not true. But writing it out would just be tedious. Basically the gist of it would be that you assume the upper bound of the y terms in the second integral is a semi-circle with radius 1/2 [r-inner radius of crust]. but im sure the difference between the two does not matter enough to matter greatly.

honestly facebook guy, i'm sure your numbers are right, but they're just so convoluted. keep it simple.

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

I'd like to point out to all of the people arguing the mathematics that the P*I*Z*Z*A is in fact the only formula that works for the HUMOUR. You all fail terrifically at GETTING A JOKE.

about 2 years ago TopherSimpson (Twitter) responded:

Best comment of this entire tragic mess>> David Cervera said...
Oh forget it, let's order Chinese!

about 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

Wait, Wait, Wait, so are you saying that if I cut my pizza into 5 slices instead of 8 I'll be less hungry when I'm done?

almost 2 years ago fitzapollo responded:

I can't believe I am adding to this but aprestia, you aren't exactly right. andreask made an argumentative error. well not exactly an error, he just failed at arguing effectively. He missed the point of an earlier math teachers comment. He flamed him for attempting to apply a non euclidean principle to a euclidean space, or some such nonsense, when none of that was occurring. All the guy was pointing out was the theoretical existence of a spherical cube, which Andreask had earlier denied. so in retrospect, mathematical error there too.

On a personal note, having a published paper on Algebra is the mathematical equivalent of making a 3 point shot in basketball... sure, not everyone can do it, but enough people can that it isn't exactly an accomplishment.

almost 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

There were almost no comments when I StumbledUpon this. Now, there are many, and mostly from trolls... It's true, the internet did lose its sense of humor. And for the person who said z*z=z^2, thanks for pointing out the obvious, and you don't have to be a math major to know that's obvious. I didn't bother reading all of the comments, a quick glance at all the words in caps told me that most of the comments were from trolls. I hope all of you trolls learn that you're unwanted on the interwebs.

IF, we really wanted to get mathematical, we can define the volume of the pizza solely in terms of the radius of the crust and the "inner" pizza and the height of the "inner" pizza. The crust is essentially a torus. A cylinder works just fine (a spherical cube, get it? it might have been a bad connection, I'm notorious for doing that), but that overestimates the height of the "inner" pizza. Anyway, the volume of a torus is given by the formula: 2*pi^2*R*r^2, where R is the radius of the "inner" pizza plus the radius of the crust and r is the radius of the crust. To find the volume of the "inner" pizza, the actual cylinder, we would first need its radius, which can be found by R-r (simple). So, the volume of the "inner" pizza would be h*pi*(R-r)^2. Therefore, the volume of the pizza would be 2*pi^2*R*r^2+h*pi*(R-r)^2. True mathematicians and/or math majors, not trolls who think they are just because they can do Algebra 2, are welcome to simplify this formula, to reduce the number of variables, find a single variable calculus approach, create a different equation altogether, etc. This equation doesn't take everything into account and assumes that the pizza is formed of a perfect cylinder and torus, but if we were to take everything into account (toppings included), we would have one heck of an equation.

andreask, really? really? I hope this webpage will be posted on Failblog.org. For a fail or win, I don't know. Recognition of sarcasm fail? Math win? I don't know. 354629 views at the time I write this comment. I only wrote this comment because some people attacked my honor as an amateur mathematician without using the brain's ability to interpret stimuli on multiple levels (in other words, literal and figuratively, seriously and sarcastically, and to take a JOKE). I hope that many of you realize that you've made a mockery of yourselves to the rest of the human race.

almost 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

Oh, I should also add, mainly as a comment to andreask, that I'll be going to one of this nations, and consequently the world's, best institutes of higher learning, on a full scholarship. I'll not mention which one for the sake of privacy. So, I don't think my school district failed me, although my high school education should have been more challenging, which is why I'm independently studying AP Physics B (they don't offer C because I'm probably the only person in my district who could pass it), AP Calculus BC (no teacher, just me and a book, and I'm actually scoring 5s on practice tests), and AP Language; IN THE SAME SEMESTER while doing two other AP classes, helping people with computer issues, practicing C++, learning more about 3D modeling, and generally loving knowledge (and loving knowledge does not mean getting a book of all the worlds facts and memorizing it. Memorization is one of the brain's most rudimentary functions. There are different kinds of intelligence, for those of you who never bothered to realize that). Withhold your judgments or praises, I write this for neither; I write this for it to be known.

almost 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

And finally, after burning out the coolness of the other two retorts, I shouldn't call myself an amateur mathematician, instead, just a person who loves math and the things related to it.

almost 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

I like how after all the dust settles the last one remaining is the OP.

almost 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

Brilliant. I saw this around January and returned to see if you were still arguing! Shame its stopped!

Mark. Oh dear, oh dear. You started this whole mess, where were you when Andreask and Facehead were tearing into each other? You seriously, like the last guy said, waited for the dust to settle before gracing us with your brilliant, brilliant mind.

Mockery to the human race? Trolls?

"a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

Yes, I quoted Wikipedia. I could quote some Shakespeare and then enjoy the smell of my own fart but I'll pass.

...anyways, this all started by you claiming the picture was wrong when its right. Doesn't that make you the troll king? And the only thing that made this interesting was the arguing so I'd say that trolling has truimphed over your pathetic attempt to salvage some dignity by telling us all just how smart you are.

While we're at it though - I've got an IQ of 142. I like telling people I'm clever too.

almost 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

@ Anonymous Facebook User

Firstly, I rule 14 against you, most of everyone who commented, the people on Digg and various other websites like it, and people who will comment in the future. Secondly, I could say that I have an IQ over that of 142, but that would be imitating you, so I will not. Thirdly, it pains me more than anything that writing this comment should be necessary.

If you, my "clever" fellow, truly have an IQ of 142, should it not have been obvious that my first comment is sarcastic? Well, you did not find the sarcasm in it considering your remark that I am "the troll king." Furthermore, your comment about Mr. Bixler's comment is misinterpreted. He did not mean that I hid while these people were going at it, he means quite the contrary. If you know anything about popular culture references, "after all the dust settles" means after the altercation or conflict is over, a victor has emerged, that victor being me. I eschew such comments because, as I stated, I wrote what I did to neither be judged or praised.

Beyond the misinterpretation of one bad example of sarcasm (my classmates in my AP Literature and AP Language class immediately recognized the sarcasm. However, they did agree that it was not humorous), your post also displays a paucity in sophistication of diction and syntax that is characteristic of internet trolls.

"...the subtlety of this usage requires second-order interpretation of the speaker's intentions. This sophisticated understanding is lacking in some people with brain damage, dementia and autism..."
- Wikipedia, the article on Sarcasm

See? I can quote too! (you horribly injected it into your post [as I did in case you, the reader, did not realize that was intentional] which shows a lack of organizational ability) - Of course, I'm not saying that you have brain damage, dementia, or autism. - Why quote Shakespeare when you could have quoted Tolstoy or Rand or Stevenson, authors who are arguably more insightful than he. As Wiki says, I cannot say it better, there is a certain level of subtlety in sarcasm, and in most writing. In fact, there is quite a bit in this post but I do not expect you or many other people who will read and comment about this comment to see it. Continuing deconstructing your post, "I've got" is perfectly acceptable in colloquial speaking, but that reads "I have got," which is clearly grammatically incorrect.

Referring to your first sentence, it is entertaining for an outside observer to watch things like this unfold (I would have lmao'd in reading all these comments and how their posters horribly misinterpreted the first post and, of course, the following mini-flame war); but what makes comments like this humorous is to be the observer, not the participant. Once you make a comment, you have exposed yourself to critique. Then, you must also make sure to make a comment that is distinguished from the rest of the comments. Your post is merely a basic ad hominem attack like other posts. The fact that you mention your IQ, if that is your IQ, grants no ethos to the pedantic things you wrote.

But enough with analyzing your post.

It should be clear that such statements are not sufficient to say that you are intelligent (that vague and ill-defined comment). In fact, there is nothing more in this world I pity more than people who are indecently proud of their intelligence, like you and andreask. I am ashamed that I ever wrote what I did about my taking many AP classes, and even to insult you by insinuating that my IQ is greater than yours. Writing this very comment shames me.

You should realize that an IQ of 142 is insignificant. If one were to make a circle representing the world's knowledge, Albert Einstein's circle of knowledge would only be visible by the aid of an electron microscope. Perhaps that is too generous. By knowledge, I do not mean his influence over the world or the range of his study, but I mean the magnitude of information he knew and directly imparted to the world (not the works of scientists who used his ideas). You, anonymous Facebook user, will be less than that one day; you will be so unknown that you will become an unknown unknown. You have not even been alluded to in a footnote on a one sentence Wikipedia article. Please do not misunderstand me and believe that I am some sort of anti-human individual or believe that we are just insignificant worms, squirming on the grand field that is Time (it should be clear what I mean, if not, then you should look elsewhere than a career in literature). There are many people more intelligent than you or I, like savants, an extreme example (but regardless of who these intelligent people are, that does not mean they will accomplish something in life [other than being smart] or that I will not amount to anything significant). Some of those intelligent people have probably read these comments and have shaken their heads in disgust.

To answer your question about my whereabouts, in all honesty, I posted this comment on Dec. 26 and forgot all about it. I have more important things to do than scrounge the interwebs. One day, I Googled (a colloquialism) my name out of boredom only to discover this web page on Feb 14. Needless to say, I was shocked. It took me a day to attempt to compose my thoughts and say them in a way that idiots (no other word can be used) can understand; I was evidently unsuccessful but I did not expect to be and still do not expect to be successful with this post.

I have already completed my studies of Calculus BC (a function of my not being on the internet 24/7) and I am currently studying maths beyond the first two years of college of my own free will in hopes of being able to contribute to the wealth of scientific knowledge and to help integrate computer technology into the lives of people. I do not learn because it makes me feel smart or because some person said it is a noble thing to do, I learn because it helps me achieve my ambition, of which I doubt you have. An artist once wrote that "No art, regardless of how minor, requires nothing but total dedication from its practitioner." What is your "art?" What is your passion (that's a question to all of you reading this)? Anonymous Facebook user, you are an example of the foolishness and hubris of the human race that is, unfortunately, a hallmark of our species.

Like I said, I hate writing this and wish it were not necessary. I wrote that first comment in the style of other FailBlog.org comments (I obviously failed at mimicking that style) that make a sarcastic remark about the fail and a series of comments follow, playing on the sarcasm of the first one. My intention was to spawn a series of humorous comments to complement the astute observation of the poster of the picture. I thought this image was very humorous and it made my day that day. So, KUDOS, poster of this picture; you did your job. I'm saddened that so many people did not see the sarcasm in my comment and desecrated your picture so, and I take responsibility for what happened. So please, future posters, comment about this picture. I know that for many of you, the urge to post something stupid (I intentionally used a simple word to draw attention to two points) will be strong, so resist it. Prove to me, a person who has lost almost all faith in the possibility, that intelligent and/or rational people exist in appreciable numbers on the internet.

PS: Don't post TL;DR or write something that shows you didn't read this. The absence of your post will be enough to inform us that you do not have anything significant to say, that is if you intend to post something.

Let us start again and I will make a new "first" comment:

Pi*z*z*a? Why not Pi*c*c*a?

almost 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

Dear andreask,

No one will care if you are intelligent if you are also pretentious. Otherwise stated as: If you are PRETENTIOUS, then no one will care that you are INTELLIGENT. Symbolized as P --> I. Simple Logic.

Dear Mark,

I am very sorry that so many people thought it their duty to criticize you.

almost 2 years ago izgard responded:

While andreask has come off as a rather pretentious douche, how come no one is taking issue with facehead? This dickhead is going around wishing death and disease to another over an argument in a comments section for a cartoon and is using his educational shortcomings to compare himself to the likes of Shakespeare and Chaucer. What a self-satisfying cunt.

I suppose the trend to always criticize the least likeable rather than the most horrible person is evidence that the internet is full of retards.

Oh, and real pizza has no raised edges. It's only the American bastardization (which is by on means less delicious) and its derivatives that have puffy crusts.

almost 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

I personally believe that raised edges not only make the pizza more delicious, but also easier to hold, when done properly ^.^ so, improvement rather than bastardization =P

almost 2 years ago austinbell11 (Twitter) responded:

lol NERDRAGE!!!!

almost 2 years ago (Facebook) responded:

I don't know which is funnier, the picture or the comments about it.. :P

over 1 year ago Apostolos liked this post.

over 1 year ago (Facebook) responded:

I can't believe I am adding to this but aprestia, you aren't exactly right. andreask made an argumentative error. well not exactly an error, he just failed at arguing effectively. He missed the point of an earlier math teachers comment. He flamed him for attempting to apply a non euclidean principle to a euclidean space, or some such nonsense, when none of that was occurring. All the guy was pointing out was the theoretical existence of a spherical cube, which Andreask had earlier denied. so in retrospect, mathematical error there too.
Water Damage Restoration Procedures

about 1 year ago Thomas David Herburger (Facebook) responded:

What happens when some douche bags make a faux pas at mathematical prowess?

-NERDRAGE!

about 1 year ago Andru Tcr Quinn (Facebook) responded:

this was funny till he wrote back, he's still wrong and made it not funny, double fail, so intense

about 1 year ago Billy Bob (Facebook) responded:

I found this page that shows a really easy way of explaining and doing it.
http://www.volumeformula.org

7 months ago Robert Jeffrey (Facebook) responded:

actually i took an iq test that was on tv once and i got 98. but i was drunk!

sorry but i am going to reply without reading most of your post, how much time and effort did you put into that? although the einstein bit was interesting. "perhaps too generous?" - there's no room here for perhaps andreas,! you already got the pizza thing wrong!!!

yeh have a go at my diction and whatnot, feel better. i'm a bright enough spark to know exactly what to say to bring you out of the woodwork, and so you did. to be honest i hoped the other guy would come back and we could have nerdwars part 2. but i guess he's busy, maybe his maths paper is more harder than yours?

so long andreas, suck my dic..tion

5 months ago Mark Aligbe (Facebook) responded:

1. I lost the internets.
2. Why are you guys still bothering with this anyway?

5 months ago Joseph Hart (Facebook) responded:

I have followed this for so long now, and it never gets old. I still say stick with the water displacement test...that would give a true value of the volume given--although it would make for wet pizza!