proof:
lim xinf ( 1/x2 ) = 0
for retards: the closer you get to the 1/infinite, the closer you get to 0. 1/2 = 0.5, 1/3 = 0.33, 1/4 = 0.25, 1/5 = 0.20... 1/10 = 0.01, 1/100 = 0.001...

There's there's more than one way to avoid the corners though, making it more like infinity/higher-infinity. So i'd assume there's an answer that isn't 0.

That poster is a tard spouting gibberish, inf^2 vs inf is a meaningless distinction in analysis, they are both defined to be the same element of the extended reals, which doesn't matter because he doesn't understand the question.

The answer is way more complex that 1/(inf2) I'd say.
The square is of ANY orientation, so it CAN fall either on a corners or miss them completly)
You would have to use integratio over x->,y-> and theta to solve this AND be careful of not counting squares twice.

gets it

I'll have a stab at modeling it a bit though.

At '0' orientation (facing cardinal directions), the set of positions that don't cover the corner is of measure 0 (regardless of if a corner coinciding counts as 'coverage').

At PI/4 orientation (45 degrees), the distance you could move a given square in the x and y axis respectively without covering a corner is sqrt(2)-1 which I believe can be generalized to sqrt(2)*cos(PI/4-theta)-1 [where the angle theta ranges from 0 to PI/4]

The answer is way more complex that 1/(inf2) I'd say.
The square is of ANY orientation, so it CAN fall either on a corners or miss them completly)
You would have to use integratio over x->,y-> and theta to solve this AND be careful of not counting squares twice.

This is very similar to another question ive seen, I wonder if its reducible. The answer to that one was 1/π oddly enough.

This is gonna be an ugly as fuck triple integral, probably some nastly trig in there too. Theta on the outside, then X and Y. At 0 and 90 angle, odds are exactly zero. I think it maximizes at 45°.

3 weeks ago

Anonymous

I think I can reduce it to a single integral with a single parameter (the angle), I'm not sure if I've done it correctly though.

I'm glad I'm not the only one, that was very confusing. >What kind of plane >On the bottom or the top? >If you drop it on the top of the fuselage does it count as also covering a corner on the bottom?

The probability of not placing a piece on a corner tile is (n^2)-4/n^2, where n is the side length. As side length approaches infinity, this probability approaches 1/1.

(me)
Ho shit I didn't understand the question. I though the corners as in the corners of the planes and not the squares.
The additional unit (lets call it x) not covering one of the squares imply that x must cover one of the square with the exact same orientation and position, which is basically improbable but not impossible.
Won't do any math about this, but I'll say les than 1%.

It doesn't specify that position and orientation are independent variables, or how they are distributed, so the question is ambiguous, even if they likely assume that it can be modeled via: the center of a given tile is dropped on a given tile (without loss of generality) with real x and y values selected from a uniform [0,1) distribution and the orientation is against selected from [0,PI/2)

Retard, you're asking me to compare two immeasurable numbers that cannot be defined in any way thanks to your vague direction
You're comparing a distance of ~0 to a collection of infinitely small variations of angles

Depends on the shape of the plane.
Without this information, you're making assumptions. Without knowing the shape of the plane the answer is complete guesswork.

Infinite probability.

kys

1/(inf2) ≈ 0

proof:

lim xinf ( 1/x2 ) = 0

for retards: the closer you get to the 1/infinite, the closer you get to 0. 1/2 = 0.5, 1/3 = 0.33, 1/4 = 0.25, 1/5 = 0.20... 1/10 = 0.01, 1/100 = 0.001...

inf2 = infinite to the power of 2, a.k.a. infinite * infinite, wouldn't expect more from the loser incel coomer containment board

There's there's more than one way to avoid the corners though, making it more like infinity/higher-infinity. So i'd assume there's an answer that isn't 0.

I finished high school and I still don't get it.

That poster is a tard spouting gibberish, inf^2 vs inf is a meaningless distinction in analysis, they are both defined to be the same element of the extended reals, which doesn't matter because he doesn't understand the question.

gets it

I'll have a stab at modeling it a bit though.

At '0' orientation (facing cardinal directions), the set of positions that don't cover the corner is of measure 0 (regardless of if a corner coinciding counts as 'coverage').

At PI/4 orientation (45 degrees), the distance you could move a given square in the x and y axis respectively without covering a corner is sqrt(2)-1 which I believe can be generalized to sqrt(2)*cos(PI/4-theta)-1 [where the angle theta ranges from 0 to PI/4]

The answer is way more complex that 1/(inf2) I'd say.

The square is of ANY orientation, so it CAN fall either on a corners or miss them completly)

You would have to use integratio over x->,y-> and theta to solve this AND be careful of not counting squares twice.

Here's a image for what I am talking about

(Forgot the angle)

This is very similar to another question ive seen, I wonder if its reducible. The answer to that one was 1/π oddly enough.

This is gonna be an ugly as fuck triple integral, probably some nastly trig in there too. Theta on the outside, then X and Y. At 0 and 90 angle, odds are exactly zero. I think it maximizes at 45°.

I think I can reduce it to a single integral with a single parameter (the angle), I'm not sure if I've done it correctly though.

So are you saying the square can never fall like pic related?

My dumbass was picturing a Boeing 747 with the missing texture grid applied

I'm glad I'm not the only one, that was very confusing.

>What kind of plane

>On the bottom or the top?

>If you drop it on the top of the fuselage does it count as also covering a corner on the bottom?

0%

The answer to this question relies completely on what the resolution and distance between the smallest possible coordinates within the squares are.

how dense is the material because you can drop the tile on the side and it can just pin to the floor like a shuriken

The probability of not placing a piece on a corner tile is (n^2)-4/n^2, where n is the side length. As side length approaches infinity, this probability approaches 1/1.

there are no corners in infinite planes, so 0%

Corners of the square on the pattern, not corner of the plane

50/50

either it does or it doesnt

Tending to zero? It's possible, but there is no finite number of possible positions and orientations to calculate

Is this asking about the corner squares of the plane or the corners of each square in the plane?

99,999999999999999999999999999999% I think

(me)

Ho shit I didn't understand the question. I though the corners as in the corners of the planes and not the squares.

The additional unit (lets call it x) not covering one of the squares imply that x must cover one of the square with the exact same orientation and position, which is basically improbable but not impossible.

Won't do any math about this, but I'll say les than 1%.

It doesn't specify that position and orientation are independent variables, or how they are distributed, so the question is ambiguous, even if they likely assume that it can be modeled via: the center of a given tile is dropped on a given tile (without loss of generality) with real x and y values selected from a uniform [0,1) distribution and the orientation is against selected from [0,PI/2)

what does "cover any corner" even means.

It means the corner of the plane ends up on the inside of the dropped unit square.

Retard, you're asking me to compare two immeasurable numbers that cannot be defined in any way thanks to your vague direction

You're comparing a distance of ~0 to a collection of infinitely small variations of angles

Depends on the shape of the plane.

Without this information, you're making assumptions. Without knowing the shape of the plane the answer is complete guesswork.

You felt really smart typing out this retardation

Prove me wrong gay

>game's source code is a complete fucking black box

mathfags talk about shit like this all day and expect to get payed

LMAO

truly, the naked emperor of natural sciences

no wonder I always hated it

I know this one it's 1/pi for some fucking reason right and people run simulations of this to find digits of pi.

What's with all the Ganker threads on Ganker lately?

Taking refuge?

YSBATST

2 - (6/pi)