Maths in architecture.
This is our little slideshow which makes you get to know us a little bit.
This is our action plan which explains what everybody's tasks were during the project.
Here is an example of in what way maths was used in architecture in ancient Egypt.
Jort and Niels did an interview with a local architect. They asked him whether he used a lot of maths if he makes a design and if he could give some examples.
The golden ratio technique is also used a lot by architects.
Comparison
WEERT:
SIMILARITIES:
They did research on more than one structure that inspired them and so did we.
Clear calculations and understandable.
DIFFERENCES:
They used engineering which was nice to read about and we didn’t do it.
They used a rollercoaster and we used an age and type of building.
AHLCON:
SIMILARITIES:
Like us, they studied an old and symmetrical building.
They too found out actual mathematics behind that structure
DIFFERENCES:
They chose to go with 1 structure while we chose the buildings in the age of Romans, Greeks and Egyptians.
They used details for example the drainage.
BAKEN PARK 1:
SIMILARITIES:
I didn’t find any similarities because it was presented and researched differetly
DIFFERENCES:
They chose a local structure and did research on it while we chose structures from around the globe.
They used a completely different style of presenting.
They gave a lot of opinions it seemed like not just facts.
BAKEN PARK 2:
Similarities:
I did not find any similarities because they did not use mathematics or our style.
Differences:
They didn’t use mathematics.
They described the buildings but not the science about them.
BAKEN PARK 3:
Similarities:
They had a similar introduction.
Differences:
They only wrote down lengths no explanation or calculations like we did.
They described the buildings not the maths.
BAKEN PARK 4
Similarities:
They had a nice introduction about themselves.
Differences:
They didn’t use a lot of maths while we did.
They described the building and the function but nothing about math or science.
PAWAR
Similarities:
They used famous buildings because, we used the Parthenon and they used The Sydney Opera House and the Eiffel Tower.
Differences:
I had the feeling that we used more maths than them.
We used a period of time to explain about they used 2 buildings.
SIMILARITIES:
They did research on more than one structure that inspired them and so did we.
Clear calculations and understandable.
DIFFERENCES:
They used engineering which was nice to read about and we didn’t do it.
They used a rollercoaster and we used an age and type of building.
AHLCON:
SIMILARITIES:
Like us, they studied an old and symmetrical building.
They too found out actual mathematics behind that structure
DIFFERENCES:
They chose to go with 1 structure while we chose the buildings in the age of Romans, Greeks and Egyptians.
They used details for example the drainage.
BAKEN PARK 1:
SIMILARITIES:
I didn’t find any similarities because it was presented and researched differetly
DIFFERENCES:
They chose a local structure and did research on it while we chose structures from around the globe.
They used a completely different style of presenting.
They gave a lot of opinions it seemed like not just facts.
BAKEN PARK 2:
Similarities:
I did not find any similarities because they did not use mathematics or our style.
Differences:
They didn’t use mathematics.
They described the buildings but not the science about them.
BAKEN PARK 3:
Similarities:
They had a similar introduction.
Differences:
They only wrote down lengths no explanation or calculations like we did.
They described the buildings not the maths.
BAKEN PARK 4
Similarities:
They had a nice introduction about themselves.
Differences:
They didn’t use a lot of maths while we did.
They described the building and the function but nothing about math or science.
PAWAR
Similarities:
They used famous buildings because, we used the Parthenon and they used The Sydney Opera House and the Eiffel Tower.
Differences:
I had the feeling that we used more maths than them.
We used a period of time to explain about they used 2 buildings.
Reflection
As a group we decided to do our math project about math in architecture, we chose this specific topic because we all quite like math in the real life world. We found it interesting to take a look at maths in a different way than just learning it from our books. After we had chosen our topic the next thing we had to do was dividing the tasks within our group. This went really well, we had no difficulties with this and everyone agreed on his task. Although most parts of the project went really well there are of course things that we could have done better such as the teamwork. Because we had to divide the tasks per person, so everyone was just focussed on his own part of the project and not on the project as a whole. As result the teamwork wasn’t that great at some points.