The largest sofa you can move around a corner
quantamagazine.org
quantamagazine.org
Needless to say, that reinforced by Ikea furniture only mindset until I know I'm not moving for a decade.
My wife owned a condo before we got married and they had moved in this huge sofa. After the sofa was moved in, they did a lot of renovations which made it impossible to get out.
Ended up using a chainsaw instead of an axe but it got the job done. Wife wasnt happy but I was like there is no other way to get this out of here besides in pieces haha.
I’ll remember that next time.
No you won’t.
Windows is framing, doors is architrave, floors is skirting board, ceiling is coving, halfway up a wall is a dado rail and 3/4s+ up is a picture rail.
But I’m in Tasmania, some geographic variation in dialect can be expected.
Except, I’m from South Australia, so some people around here think I talk posh.
The category on the B&Q site is called "cornice & coving" so either they mean the same thing or there's a subtle difference in which one is which. Maybe one is plaster and one is wood?
I think I've heard some carpenters call baseboard skirting, but the most common usage of "skirting board" is restricted to the baseboard like piece on the sides of stairs.
We have a term cove molding, but it is a particular style of crown molding.
A rail at 3/4 height we also call picture rail. I don't think I've heard of dado rail though.
I didn't mention where I'm from, so those are Canadian terms, at least Western Can terms maybe?
That dado rail is part of wainscoting, it's the top rail.
Thanks wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dado_rail
[1] https://dirkgently.fandom.com/wiki/Sofa_on_the_staircase
The reason was that the furniture was brought upstairs for the staircase remodeling, and the new staircase made it impossible to move it back.
I can believe it though as I had the same thing happen to me - I believe in my case the building had settled (it was always very wonky) and the sofa had sagged taking the result beyond the very narrow threshold that had let me get it in in the first place. A friend helped me saw it in half in the end after I dissuaded him from chucking it out the window; I was on the 8th floor and there were cars parked below so it would have been risky at best.
I'd always assumed the Dirk Gently story had inspired the maths problem, but I see from the Wikipedia article that it first arose in 1966 - so TIL.
Sofas used to be great because they were also shorter than the height of a door frame. Now everything is oversized and you need a 10-15% bigger apartment just to have one of each thing your grandparents had.
With the right design sometimes this still plays out on the diagonal.
But it’s the depth as much as the length. I get that a table has to be a couple inches wider so people don’t bump knees but your thigh bone only grows at a quarter to a third of your overall height increase, right?
Couches are just oversized. They’re uncomfortable to get out of if you’re not careful when shopping.
Also due to the biases humans have with respect to orientation in space, turning the item upside down, back to front or both can also make things much easier.
I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean here.
There are a few couches where the seat sticking out past the front of the arms causes problems, and a few handrails in stairways that you can sneak between the arms of course, but probably nine times out of ten it's just the obtuse angle between the back and the arms that is your constraint. And that angle plus the rest of the couch around it looks a lot more like the cutout in the linked article than an L. Which is kinda the reason I brought it up.
I don't beleive in coincidence: You stop optimizing when you can get it around the corner.
'You always find something in the last place you look.'
It appears that manufacturers favour modular over optimal furniture.
Also any deviation from a cuboid quickly becomes expensive.
https://www.mdpi.com/symmetry/symmetry-14-01409/article_depl...
> But that was an impossible task: There’s no one formula that can give the area for every kind of shape. (Think about how you use different functions to find the areas of circles versus triangles.)But that was an impossible task: There’s no one formula that can give the area for every kind of shape. (Think about how you use different functions to find the areas of circles versus triangles.)
I don't get it. Am I missing something obvious? I mean, if you have a shape then you can calculate it's area with Green's theorem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green%27s_theorem
If your shape is parameterized then so is your area definition. What's the problem?
See Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171(3972), 701–703.
> showing that Gerver’s sofa was the biggest possible shape that could move through the hallway without getting stuck at its corner
But there could be other shapes that also satisfy these conditions and could also have the biggest possible shape, correct?
Even the beloved Ektorp has had multiple rounds of bean counters ruin it
Then do it in 4d
Then 24d
Then if you dare, 17d.