<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Mathematical table turning revisited · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/math_0511490/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/math_0511490/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Mathematical table turning revisited — mentioned by mauvehaus</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21630680</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:math_0511490:21630680</guid><pubDate>Mon, 25 Nov 2019 17:45:30 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Possibly dumb question: Will this work for tables where there is no point of rotation that the equal-length legs are equidistant from? I.e. there&amp;#x27;s no point of rotational symmetry as far as the legs are concerned. It seems that the argument is predicated on the idea that after rotating the table 90 degrees, there&amp;#x27;s a leg in the same location on the ground as there was before rotating the table 90 degrees. The linked paper [0] goes so far as to cover the case of rectangular tables, but it&amp;#x27;s quite common to have trapezoidal arrangements of legs, on e.g. a demilune table. Chairs also often have…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/math_0511490/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math.HO</category></item></channel></rss>
