
The Mathematics of Lego - robg
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/01/the-mathematics-of-lego/
======
someotheridiot
If anyone is interested I have access to this kind of data (via
Rebrickable.com) so can redo these calculations using more recent sets.

------
CountHackulus
Interesting argument, and from my experience seems to hold true. The only
counterexample I can think of is the Taj Mahal:
<http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=10189-1>

This is why I always enjoyed getting larger sets, especially technic sets, as
they always had rare pieces that were extremely useful for a specific
function. For example, the shifter gate piece in the original supercar set:
<http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/6543>

~~~
tlrobinson
I always thought very specific pieces like that weren't really in the spirit
of Lego.

~~~
tikhonj
I don't know. I think a good selection of different pieces vastly expands your
options. Some of the coolest models are the ones that use weird pieces in
clever ways--my favorite example was an Audi R8 that used white rope pieces
(very specialized) for the front LED lights.

------
agumonkey
I thought it would be closer to that
<http://www.clear.rice.edu/elec201/Book/legos.html>

there was a nice website tracing history of bricks dimensions but I can't find
it for the moment.

------
gbog
Did I read it too fast or this article is a necklace of tautological pearls?

~~~
andrewflnr
There is some real data, but it does look like a case of research confirming
common sense. Anyway, it make sense once you see it, but I probably wouldn't
have thought of it myself. I enjoyed it.

~~~
cgs1019
I think the key point is not _that_ the number of piece type increases with
number of overall pieces, but rather the nature of the relationship (sub-
linear in log-log space) meaning that while number of distinct component types
increases with number of components, it does _less_ so the more components
there are. In other words there is a sort of economy of scale. C.f. similar
results in biological and municipal networks due to Geoff West et al (sorry
for lack of citation; typing this on my phone). I get the sense this work is
related to West's.

