Talk:Vegreville egg

Talk
Why can't eggs be defined mathematically? Just look at this: http://www.mathematische-basteleien.de/eggcurves.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.204.229 (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what Resch claims - it's pretty obvious from the pictures that the triangles are not all simultaneously equilateral and flat. In fact, they don't appear to be congruent, or all the same single shape. And besides anything else, mathematically speaking sticking six equilateral flat triangles together results in an angle of 360 degrees, making the surface flat at that point - no way you could make the curved midriff of the egg that way. But of course I'm not going to just change the page because I don't have a verifiable source - just common sense. Too bad I haven't self-published comments about the egg like Resch has. 121.45.215.122 (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Dave


 * But it doesn't say that the triangles are flat. If you look at one of the sources it seems to indicate that some of the pieces were bent. I'm curious as to why you think the designer of the egg would lie about how he developed it. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 05:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)