you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 78 points 7 months ago (16 children)

Except the 17 square version holds less syrup than the 16 square version because you need to reduce the size of the squares to fit more of them.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 60 points 7 months ago* (14 children)

    If you take the original 16 squares and reduce them each in half, you can have 32 squares. Doctorate now, please.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 7 months ago (12 children)

    If the squares are half the size, you get 4x the number of squares, assuming you're measuring side length and not area.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 7 months ago (11 children)

    Oh hey sorry I didn't know you went to school for this shit. Fine. you make the waffles.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    One square is the optimal waffle if you’re optimizing for syrup volume alone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago

    I will put you to work testing this theory.

    Proceed with waffle preparation and delivery, I'll be waiting, and will provide my own syrup. Please note all waffles are to be gluten-free, as my body hates me and the things I enjoy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    If you serve the syrup in a cup, then the syrup to waffle ratio is infinite.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    I post this comment quite often, but a number divided by zero is not infinity, so the syrup to waffle ratio would actually be undefined.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments