math

I once tried to prove that the hexagonal tessellation is the most efficient one for the perimeter/area ratio.

I stopped when I realized bees make honeycombs in hexagons. So they can safely store the most honey with the least material.

Proof by natural selection.

obligatory cpg gray 

hexagons are the bestagons

Working on building zkTLS infra/products. A ruthless empiricist and meme connoisseur.

http://opacity.network

neuroscience phd, DeSci advocate, interfaith chaplain. co-host of the /okbanger show and vibe imagineer for /christin. https://seemore.tv/christin

I never got into cpg gray.

I was trying to scrape an api that used lat/lng and realized using hexagons would be the easiest.

After that Uber released this library that moreless does the same thing

obligatory cpg gray 

hexagons are the bestagons 

https://youtu.be/thOifuHs6eY?feature=shared

Decentralized Science | putting the IO in bio | generative biology founder | answering your DeSci, GenBio, and Astrofuturism questions

I remember thinking it through.

Bees want to avoid a structure where a single hole can drain the whole hive.

So you have to section it off.

You want easy access, and if you don’t make long tubes then you reduce how much is readily available.

Not a proof, or at least a rigorous one. Presupposing the reasons why bees store in that way. It may be a coincidence it’s efficient, and there is some hidden variable we’ve as of yet left unexplored. 

But yeah, *probably* efficiency.

In 2D the hexagonal lattice has long been known to be optimal. In 3D the Kepler conjecture states that the hexagonal close-packed (HCP) lattice is optimal and was also proven. Interestingly, this is not the lattice that bees construct; they prefer one with rhombic dodecahedral cells, which look hexagonal when sectioned

This structure reminds me a conception which is introduced in Mandelbrot's book, Lacunarity.