TWSB: So a “Squircle” is a Thing.
And it’s exactly what it sounds like. “A squircle is a shape with properties between those of a square and those of a circle,” according to the almighty Wiki. The general equation for such as shape is (x-a)4 + (y-b)4 = r4, where (a,b) is the center of the squircle and r is the minor radius of the squircle.
A squircle is not a rounded square, which is formed by arranging four quarters of a circle and connecting the loose ends with straight lines. The equation for a squircle is simpler and more generalizable than the rounded square.
So what the heck are squircles used for, other than for amusing people with their name?
Well, apparently the shape is very useful in optics. If a light is passed through a 2-D square aperture, the diffraction pattern’s central spot can be modeled by the squircle.
Squircle dinner plates also have an advantage of their round brethren—a squircle has a larger surface area than a circle with the same radius, but will still occupy the same amount of space in a cabinet. And efficiently wedging dishware into cupboards is what science is all about!
Additional note: a squircle with unequal vertical and horizontal dimensions is called a rectellipse. That sounds like a hemorrhoid medication.
(The amount of time I spent searching for an “Rx pad generator” just to make that stupid joke is embarrassing.)
Are you sick of all the calculus stuff yet?
Got my “Newton v. Leibniz” paper work-shopped today and my teacher said it sounded like something out of The New Yorker. So that was pretty cool.
I’ll post it here once I edit it a little more. There are still a few parts I’m not happy with.
ANYWAY.
If there’s anyone else out there who really digs the history of science/philosophy of science/science in general, they might want to check out the works of Carl Djerassi. Dr. Djerassi, an emeritus professor at Stanford, writes “science-in-fiction.” This, he says, is different than science fiction but also different than biography, as it illustrates scientific history via the human, personal sides of some of the most prominent scientists and scientific events that we’ve seen. In addition to fiction, he also writes poetry, memoir, and plays. I recommend “Calculus” because…well, obvious reasons.
Anyway, check out some of his work if this sounds interesting to you. I just spent like two hours reading his stuff and researching him. Very cool dude.
That’s all!
Aren’t librarians “bookies”?
CRAP IT’S DECEMBER.
Anyway.
So it’s been like six decades since I’ve read for pleasure*, which really blows ’cause I love to read for pleasure. My 200 Books list has idled unedited for far too long.
I actually found this really cool list that was a concatenation of 13 different “Top 100 Books” lists. As I was reading it over, there were quite a few books that I think should also be on my “200” list.
So here’s the plan:
I think I’m going to re-vamp my list, then start it all over again. Which I think would be a good thing. I seriously doubt I got a whole lot out of War and Peace when I read it as a 13-year-old. And this time I’ll give a review of each book upon completion.
Yay reading!
*The Calculus Wars doesn’t count. That wasn’t for pleasure. That was for stalking studying. Yeah. It was an…assignment. I had to read it. I totally didn’t go through it and creepily highlight a bunch of key stuff about Leibniz. That’d be wrong. I just read it for an assignment. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Stuff ‘n Noise, Noise n’ Stuff
Things.
1. This is the most horribly designed infographic ever.
2. This study is old news now I suppose, but I still find it disturbing. 53% of 16-30 year olds would give up their sense of smell for Facebook? What in the hell, people. I’d happily trade all social networking, perhaps even my blogging, for the ability to smell.
3. “Newton, Leibniz, and Pascal were all playing Hide-and-Seek, and it was Leibniz’s turn to count. Pascal immediately runs off and finds a great hiding spot, while Newton simply stands out in the open and draws a one-meter square on the ground around himself. Leibniz finishes counting, and when he looks up, he sees Newton. ‘Aha!’ he yells, ‘I found you!’ Newton responds, ‘No, you found one Newton per square meter- You found Pascal!’” (source)
DONE!
Again, sorry my blogs have been sucking always lately. Crazy semester is crazy.
Focus Pocus
Here’s more blathering in drawing form.
There is a positive correlation between the amount of stuff I need to do for school and the amount of stuff I want to draw.
Dicking around with Data
I have my first ounce of legitimate free time today and what do I do with it?
“I GOTTA ANALYZE SOME DATA!”
Today’s feature: analyzing Nobel laureates by birth dates.
Nobel Prizes are awarded for achievement in six different categories: physics, chemistry, physiology/medicine, literature, peace, and economic sciences. Thus far, there have been 863 prizes awarded to individuals and organizations.
The Nobel website has a bunch of facts on their laureates, including a database where you can search by birthday. So because I’m me and I like to analyze the most pointless stuff possible, here’s what today’s little flirtation with association entails:
1. Does the birth month of the laureate relate in any way to the category of the award (chem, medicine, etc.)?
2. Does the zodiac sign of the laureate in any way to the category of the award?
Vroom, vroom! Let’s do it.
Pre-Analysis: Examining the data
So I should preface this. I decided, upon inspecting the observed contingency table comparing Birth Month and Award Category, to drop the Economics prize altogether. I calculated that the expected cell counts would be very small (because the Economics category is actually the newest Nobel category); such small cell counts would totally throw the chi-square test. So we’re stuck with the other five categories for our analysis.
Question 1: Relation of birth month to award category
Treating Birth Month as a categorical variable (with categories January – December) and Award Category as another categorical variable (with categories equal to the six award categories), I performed a chi-square test to examine if there is an association between the two categories.
Results: χ2 (45)= 81.334, p = 0.0007345. This suggests, using a critical value of .05, that there is a significant relationship between birth month and award category.
Examining the contingency table again (which I’d post here but it’s being a bitch and won’t format correctly, so I’m just going to list what I see):
- Those born in the summer months (June – August) and the months of late fall (October, November) tend to own the Peace and Literature prizes.
- August-, September-, and October-born have most of the Physics prizes.
- The Chemistry prizes seem pretty evenly distributed throughout the months.
- The summer-born seem to have the most awards overall.
Question 2: Relation of zodiac sign to award category.
I suspected this to have a similar p-value, just solely based on the above analysis.
Results: I get a χ2 (54) = 199.8912, p < 0.0001. So this suggests, using our same cutoff value, that there is a significant relationship between zodiac sign and award category. Which makes sense, considering what we just saw with the months. But what’s interesting is that just by looking at the size of the chi-square this relationship is actually stronger than the above one.
Looking at the contingency table for this relationship, here are a few of my observations:
- Aries, Gemini, Virgos, and Libras own the Medicine awards.
- Cancers, Sagittarians, and Aquarians own the Physics awards.
- The first five zodiac signs (Aries – Leo) seem to dominate Literature.
- Capricorns are interesting. They have the least amount of awards overall, but 30% of the awards they do have are in Peace. That’s far more (percentage-wise) than any other sign. Strange noise.
OKAY THAT’S ALL.
Eigenblogger 