/ck/ - Food & Cooking

[Anonymous No.17363163]

I sure am glad Pepperidge Farm included the helpful diagram in the lower right corner of this image. I would have never been able to figure out how to cut a square into eight equal sections without it.
Thank you based Pepperidge Farm.

[Anonymous No.17363168]

>>17363163
why not just cut it into 8 squares?

[Anonymous No.17363173]

>>17363168
But then you can't feel fancy poor. And if you've ever been poor that fleeting bit of fancy poor might be the only thing that gets you through for a long time

[Anonymous No.17363176]

>>17363168
Why not just make 8 small cakes?

[Anonymous No.17363189]

>>17363168
Mathematically impossible. You can only cut a square into equal-sizes squares numbering square numbers, so you can cut a square into 4, 9, 16, etc. squares.
Eight rectangles would result in uneven frosting distribution since the sides are frosted. The corner pieces would get more frosting.
Also, biting into acute angle corners is satisfying, so it's more satisfying this way when Americans eat it with their hands.
TBFH, though, these cakes are pretty small so we always cut it into four in my family.

[Anonymous No.17363208]

>>17363163
some /ck/ook would be making parallel cuts to get 8 equal but thin slices without that pic.
>>17363168
cut 16 squares and 2 squares as a "whole piece"

[Anonymous No.17363230]

>>17363208
>cut 16 squares and 2 squares as a "whole piece"
Again, uneven frosting distribution. The inside squares wouldn't get any frosting from the sides and this would suck balls.

[Anonymous No.17363232]

>>17363208
*give 2 squares
>>17363168
I was trying to make 8 and square slices. Have an apology (You).

[Anonymous No.17363263]

How would /ck/ cut the cake?

[Anonymous No.17363294]

>>17363263

[Anonymous No.17363487]

>>17363163
I'm not doubting your intelligence, but there's probably a 50/50 chance that without that diagram you (or anyone who doesn't cook regularly) would have just started cutting individual slices. Even smart people turn into complete idiots in the kitchen for some reason.

[Anonymous No.17363492]

>>17363487
>I'm not doubting your intelligence, but I'm doubting your intelligence

[Anonymous No.17363517]

>>17363294
N_frosting = 64.843%
N_volume = 59.68%

TRIANGLE_frosting = 17.578%
TRIANGLE_volume = 20.16%

Stats for square = 25x25x5

[Anonymous No.17363522]

>>17363492
>reading comprehension
It's not about intelligence. People who don't really cook tend to just not think things through in the kitchen before they start, and if you're cutting a cake for 8 people you've probably already had a couple drinks and are preoccupied with kids and/or just trying to keep people happy/entertained. Yes, it seems obvious when you see the diagram and approach it like an elementary school geometry problem - but most people don't do that. I don't know you, but I've seen it hundreds of times. My dad has degrees in physics and engineering and watching him cook is painful.

[Anonymous No.17363537]

>>17363517
N. TRI. TRI.
Frosting | 64.743% | 17.578% | 17.578%
Volume. | 59.68%. | 20.16%. | 20.16%

Better visualization

[Anonymous No.17363556]

>>17363263

[Anonymous No.17363564]

>>17363263
How would you cut the pie?

[Anonymous No.17363573]

>>17363556
Frosting = 12.5%
Volume = 12.5%

Nice

[Anonymous No.17363577]

>>17363573
Even though you just curved the lines in the original diagram

[Anonymous No.17363580]

>>17363564
That's one delish looking go' za'

[Anonymous No.17363587]

>>17363517
how do these not total 100?

[Anonymous No.17363594]

>>17363587
They made a movie about that back in the late 90's. Turns out soul weighs like 8 grams or something.

[Anonymous No.17363601]

>>17363564

[Anonymous No.17363607]

>>17363601
>me on the bottom right

[Anonymous No.17363610]

>>17363587
I made estimates (due to line thickness) 99.999% is close enough.
Unless you forgot there were two triangles

[Anonymous No.17363627]

>>17363610
mostly the 2nd one, i assumed the triangular area was reported as a single total

[Anonymous No.17363825]

>>17363522
>but most people don't do that
Most people are dumb.

[Anonymous No.17364018]

>>17363176
Why not just buy 8 big cakes?

[Anonymous No.17364064]

>>17363587
you lose some crumbs

[Anonymous No.17365757]

.

[Anonymous No.17366302]

>>17363189
>mathematically impossible
2 vertical perpendicular slices will make 4 squares, then a 3rd slice horizontally will double that to 8.

[Anonymous No.17366369]

>>17366302
No he's right. You've made three cuts, 2 vertical bisections (I'm assuming you've stacked the two halves on top of each other after the first cut) and one horizontal bisection (again assuming the 4 pieces are stacked). If the initial side length of the square is x, you have 8 rectangles with a base of x/4 and a height of x/2. You can only divide a square into smaller squares with an equal number of horizontal and vertical bisectors.

[Anonymous No.17366373]

>>17366302
That's making 8 cubes, not squares.
Bottom four cubes won't get the frosting on the top either.

[Anonymous No.17366396]

>>17366373
>cubes
Er, hexadrons, technically. Anyways, since >>17363168 used the word "squares" it's clearly discussing cutting a 2D shape into sections, whereas you're discussing cutting a 3D shape into sections with >>17366302
It is mathematically impossible to cut a square (a 2D shape) into eight equal squares.

[Anonymous No.17366501]

>>17366369
>assuming you've stacked two halves
I didn't, I cut the cake into fourths so that each side has a length of x/2. Then slice it horizontally so that the height is halved. That comes out to 8 pieces. There's no moving of the pieces before all 3 cuts are made. I'm assuming the word "square" in the post I replied to isn't referring to a literal 2-D mathematical square, but a square prism.

[Anonymous No.17366529]

>>17366501
You can't cut x into fourths and have the resulting side length be x/2. Draw this out. Also 2 vertical cuts and one horizontal cut would give you 6 pieces, not 8.

[Anonymous No.17366540]

>>17366529
And to clarify because there seems to be some mixup on 2d/3d, I'm talking cuts in the plane of the top of the cake. It's impossible to divide a cube cake into 8 equal cubes just from cutting.

[Anonymous No.17366551]

>>17366529
I think there is a miscommunication

[Anonymous No.17366625]

>>17366551
That makes it clear.
For an unfrosted cake that is good.
For an unfrosted cake, unless it is a layer cake with an even number of layers, the lower pieces don't get an equal share of the frosting.

(What is the difference between icing and frosting, anyway?)

[Anonymous No.17366849]

>>17366551
I misread "vertical perpendicular" as "vertical", I apologize.

[Anonymous No.17366933]

>>17363163
This is actually very helpful. I cut some baked bars into 8 squares regularly and this seems like a better way to get equal portions. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.17366944]

>>17364018
fuck yes i like you.

[Anonymous No.17366950]

>>17363189
>Also, biting into acute angle corners is satisfying,
is there some kind of repeatable scientific knowledge about this?

[Anonymous No.17368297]

>>17366950
Yes, actually: https://bestlifeonline.com/cut-sandwiches-taste-better/

[Anonymous No.17368470]

>>17366933
And here they are

[Anonymous No.17368505]

>>17368470
>>17366933
Blessed follow-through Anon.
Weigh them out, do they actually match?

[Anonymous No.17368545]

>>17368505
I don't think the mixture was spread or distributed even enough to weigh the same (I don't know how that upper piece got absolutely loaded with nuts), but size wise they were very consistent. There were 4 pans altogether, but I already wrapped them up otherwise I would weigh them. Maybe I'll check in the morning, I have a 4 triangles in my fridge.

[Anonymous No.17368559]

>>17366501
Those aren't squares

[Anonymous No.17368566]

>>17366551
It's a double layer cake. Your basically fucking everyone by cutting it like this

[Anonymous No.17369268]

>>17368505
>>17368545
96, 106, 107, and 117 grams. The 96/117 corner pair looked cut slightly off the diagonal which made most of the difference. So pretty good outcome.

[Anonymous No.17369276]

>>17363163
You cared enough about that to make this thread.
You came here and spent time and effort on bragging about how you know how to cut a cake without having to look at a drawing.

That's like walking up to strangers to tell them you can tie your own shoes and wipe your own ass.

>>17363168
The triangle is considered a more festive shape for cake I think.