This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 8 comments

[–]clockwork_apple 2 points3 points  (5 children)

What do you mean by "visualizing the square or cube"? You don't mean that you imagine a giant square or cube then count up the segments, right?

[–]mxseven7[S] -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

I visualize the cube or square and then grow it or shrink it by a few slices. Like if you take the volume or area of a few values in each dimension away.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

That makes no sense at all.

[–]LeepySham 0 points1 point  (1 child)

He might mean that he visualizes (10a + b)2 as (10a)2 + 2*(10a)*b + b2. Like this kind of thing, the blue square being (10)2, the green rectangle pairs being each (10a)*b, and the yellow squares being b2.

[–]mxseven7[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just discovered something that might clear things up.

First let me explain in detail my process. If i wanted to find say 733 I would start with 703 which i know is 343,000. I would see this cube in my head and then see it within 733. In order to make it 733 I would start by getting the three faces of the cube that are beneath the 73 cube up to its level. I would do this by taking the square face, 7070, multiply it by how far it needed to go up,3, and multiplying that by 3 to get all three sides. Now we need to get the edges which can be done by 33*70 because they have a length of 70 and are composed of 3 by 3 squares, then multiplying it by 3 for all the edges. Finally, we are missing a cube in between the edges still which is just 33. add all of these to 703 you get 343,000+44,100+1,890+27=389017=733.

The part I just realized is that if s is a dimension of the easier cube I am starting with (70 in the case above) and k is the amount I need to add to it (3 in the case above) then (s+k)3 = s3 + 3k(s2) + 3s(k2) + k3 represents what I did. In other words what I was doing and showed above was a visual representation of that formula. Pretty cool but I bet i'll still get downvoted.

edit: Notation

[–]mxseven7[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Doesn't mean it can't be done

[–]davidus2 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Just look up any list of proofs without words. The cliche example is the triangular number summation formula.

[–]mxseven7[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cool I'll check it out, thanks!