[math-fun] Another counting problem
From this Sunday's New York Times Magazine section:
<< WHO MADE THAT? The Stop Sign Wasn’t Always Red By HILARY GREENBAUM and DANA RUBINSTEIN How a 2-by-2-feet sheet of metal with black lettering on a white background evolved into a red hexagonal icon.
< http://www.nytimes.com/pages/magazine/index.html > --Dan ________________________________________________________________________________________ It goes without saying that .
Hexagonal???? On 12/9/2011 8:18 PM, Dan Asimov wrote:
From this Sunday's New York Times Magazine section:
<< WHO MADE THAT?
The Stop Sign Wasn’t Always Red By HILARY GREENBAUM and DANA RUBINSTEIN How a 2-by-2-feet sheet of metal with black lettering on a white background evolved into a red hexagonal icon. < http://www.nytimes.com/pages/magazine/index.html>
--Dan
________________________________________________________________________________________ It goes without saying that .
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
Fortunately, it's only the teaser text on the front page that gets it wrong. The article itself gets mentions the correct polygon: "The recommendations were based on a simple, albeit not exactly intuitive, idea: the more sides a sign has, the higher the danger level it invokes. By the engineers’ reckoning, the circle, which has an infinite number of sides, screamed danger and was recommended for railroad crossings. The octagon, with its eight sides, was used to denote the second-highest level." --Michael On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 3:04 AM, Mike Speciner <ms@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
Hexagonal????
On 12/9/2011 8:18 PM, Dan Asimov wrote:
From this Sunday's New York Times Magazine section:
<< WHO MADE THAT?
The Stop Sign Wasn’t Always Red By HILARY GREENBAUM and DANA RUBINSTEIN How a 2-by-2-feet sheet of metal with black lettering on a white background evolved into a red hexagonal icon. < http://www.nytimes.com/pages/**magazine/index.html<http://www.nytimes.com/pages/magazine/index.html>
--Dan
______________________________**______________________________** ____________________________ It goes without saying that .
______________________________**_________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/**cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-**fun<http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun>
______________________________**_________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/**cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-**fun<http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun>
-- Forewarned is worth an octopus in the bush.
Ahhh, that explains it. I've always wondered why no-one pays attention to Yield signs. On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 08:23, Michael Kleber <michael.kleber@gmail.com>wrote:
Fortunately, it's only the teaser text on the front page that gets it wrong. The article itself gets mentions the correct polygon:
"The recommendations were based on a simple, albeit not exactly intuitive, idea: the more sides a sign has, the higher the danger level it invokes. By the engineers’ reckoning, the circle, which has an infinite number of sides, screamed danger and was recommended for railroad crossings. The octagon, with its eight sides, was used to denote the second-highest level."
--Michael
-- Robert Munafo -- mrob.com Follow me at: gplus.to/mrob - fb.com/mrob27 - twitter.com/mrob_27 - mrob27.wordpress.com - youtube.com/user/mrob143 - rilybot.blogspot.com
participants (4)
-
Dan Asimov -
Michael Kleber -
Mike Speciner -
Robert Munafo