This is the point where we start hitting the daily limits, in 2 more cycles, maybe limits of lemmy instance, and in another 2, limits of lemmy
this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2024
367 points (83.7% liked)
Math Memes
1401 readers
1051 users here now
Memes related to mathematics.
Rules:
1: Memes must be related to mathematics in some way.
2: No bigotry of any kind.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This post is well on its way to hitting 243 upvotes, but I suspect that 729 will be difficult to reach.
i never questioned it hitting, I was making some educated guesses about when can we expect that, previous post (81) got about 240 votes in 20ish hours, so i was expecting 243 to also take about same time. But there are some more things, people lose interest, all things have somewhat bell shaped curve, more like weighted bell shape, something like (polynomial)*(exponential with negative power), so most things eventually decay.
And the stats that I see in the sidebar
691 users / day
1.82K users / week
1.82K users / month
2.98K users / 6 months
1.16K subscribers
75 Posts
564 Comments
from this I was making guesses, like 243 onwards, targets would not be met in a day, and for next tripling we get more into 3-4 day territory (assuming 691 users has about 200 new users), and by next cycle, we are limited (practically) by subscribers in this lemmy instance (1.16k is about half 2.2k) if we have 2 more cycles, we are practically limited by number of mathematically inclined people on lemmy, then we see it practically die
A sad ending
well I should eat my words, it completed in less than 9 hours
I happen to pass you on this bench and I must to disagree. Even if you have a sophisticated model it just doesn't hold on to empirical evidence. This post: https://lemmy.world/post/16111988 Has 1346 upvotes and is basically the same concept but in even bigger community. There is no precedent that a meme of this kind can hit 2187 upvotes.
There will be no more than one next cycle.
well I never said that it would hit those targets, at this point I must say, I am more of applied physicist kind, so I mostly look at application rather than correctness. Plus my point was kinda applicable, the growth rate is decreasing (hit 243 in 9 hours, and then only git 70 more in next few hours, although that may also be because when the target is met, people start losing interest, but 81 is an exception) and hence the death.
Also, I did not really understand the bench reference, Is it a compliment? as in you consider me a worthy person you would happen to pass by on that bench, or is it me sticking with my idea
It bothers me that it's not really 3 times as many unless you only count the small white triangles.
If I'm counting right it's actually X3+2 right? You are adding the inner black triangle and a new overarching triangle.
Yup those are the ones I was thinking of.
And the two black triangles in the corners
not quite. if you were counting the black triangles in the previous iteration, then this should be three times as many triangles, minus three. each of the previous iteration has those two big black triangles in the corner, but when you assemble them together, they merge into the two big corner triangles and the central triangle.
But what about the undisplayed, non-equilateral triangles that I can draw between any 3 arbitrary points in the given plane? Did you count those triangles!?!
Im doing my part!
Triangles for the triangle god, fractals for the fractal throne!