h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: How to Trisect a Toblerone - A87815208
Author: Icy North - U225620

Greetings, Peer Reviewers

As most of my entries seem to be about either mathematics or food, I thought it was high time I wrote an entry on both.

I have linked to suggested diagrams, which I can send to the Artists if this is appropriate.

Comments and suggestions welcome

I couldn't understand or follow either the mathmatics, or the 'disection' instruction (then, as I can't see the pics, and its a very pictorial expliation I guess, that is hardly supprising; plus I'm just opeless at maths). But, I really liked it
Maybe, the only true, equal way, to divvy up a Toblerone, is to do so by weight/mass.... a hammer and a set of scales might work, though the result, three qually parceled out portions, may lack some of the origional asetics of the actual bar

Isn't there (I vaguely remember ther ebeing), an edited entry, on dividing up cake? That would be a nice one to link to (If indeed it exists... I do sort of remember reading it... maybe...)

It's a thumb's up from me in Pedant's Corner

I'm really not convinced by this. It's certainly a lovely way to trisect a prism, but you say yourself that a Toblerone is not a prism.

I don't think it is enough to say "Here's a great way to trisect a Toblerone, but if you're a pedant you'll realise it doesn't work."

Thanks all

Gnomon, this is an attempt to introduce non-mathematical readers to two concepts in mathematics: solid geometry and mathematical modelling.

Solid geometry is a very pure discipline, and the dissection formulae have few practical applications in the real world. By introducing the figure as a chocolate Toblerone, suddenly a real-life application becomes available, one which anyone could understand. I felt it was worth the stretch of imagination to do this - yes, it's toast-rack shaped really, but the box it comes in is a triangular prism - people can at least imagine the dissection.

To cover off the practicalities, I put in a piece at the end on the concept of mathematical modelling. No applied maths is 100% accurate, but is based on a model with assumptions. We need to recognise this, and understand that improving the model's accuracy is an iterative process.

Hope this helps explain.

You could link to A23999494 Elements.

Thanks Gnomon. I'll add links later.

Links added

A brilliantly witty and useful (somehow, I'm sure) entry - though if our nice artists could conjure something to clarify the points/corners bit, that would be helpful, though not crucial


You could of course replace three hungry and bitterly competitive children with me, when I feel like splitting the chocolate bar over a period of time (far less likely to happen, of course)

Look forward to this notable addition to the guide

strike my above point - my screen just hadn't loaded links in - all is clarified nicely

Perhaps good that my local store doesn't stock them

Thanks, NBB

I have read the interoduction and conclusion to this.

I have skimmed cautiously over the brain-damaging part.

I have one comment:



(Great idea!)

Thanks Dmitri

It's aimed at everyone who skips the brain damaging part. Maybe when the diagrams are inline, you might even be tempted to attempt a few words of it

Heh-heh. I will.

I read it through OK and came out the other end with brain unscathed. Go on Dmitri - you know you want to.

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

and