What in the fuck is this and how does someone even come up with this in 1924.I can't even draw it. Someone was nice enough to make a rendering in a 3D modeling program.It's like a combination of non-Euclidian geometry and topological knot theory and fractal geometry that isn't spherical geometry specifically. And it's the most disturbing and confusing and fucked up thing I've ever seen.
It looks fucked up, but it's a simple iterative construction. It's analogous to sierpinski triangles or other 2D stuff. It's not inconceivable someone would come up with it if they wanted to make something iterative in 3D.
>>17041324its a simple fractal. they could have calculated this in the 1800s
But what is it good for?
>>17041410>>17041417What is the rigorous mathematical definition of thisI'm sure it exists but all I see are descriptions about infinitely nested rings at a 90 degree angles
>>17041431That is a rigorous definition.
>>17041431If the picture were drawn by “infinitely” nesting rings, you’d never see it
>>17041324how can you post a pic like that and its not a gif
>>17041433Post latex if it's so obvious.
>>17041439There is no need to write it out. All the constructions are standard.
>>17041439NTA but a true nigger, not even an American nigger, could literally draw that in a few seconds on an iphone
>>17041324>I know you watch vsauce video on this.Formula goes like this:C0 = Circle with intersect of 2 perpendicular equal radius circles{C1, C2}.C1 = Circle with intersect of 2 perpendicular equal radius circles{C3 , C4}.C2 =Circle with intersect of 2 perpendicular equal radius circles{C5, C6}.C(N) = Circle with intersect of 2 perpendicular axes of equal radius circles{C(N+1), C(N+2 }.
>>17041478Accurate
