Theoretical physicist Paul Dirac offered this example to show that some objects return to their original state after two full rotations, but not after one.

Hold a cup water in one hand and rotate it through 360 degrees (in either direction). You’ll have to contort yourself to accomplish this without spilling any water, but if you continue rotating the cup another 360 degrees in the same direction, you’ll find that you return to your original state.

The same principle can be demonstrated using belts. In the video below, the square goes through two full rotations and we find that the belts have returned to their original state. This would not be the case after a single rotation. (Here two belts are attached to the square, but the trick works with any number of belts.)

Another interesting item from James Tanton’s Mathematics Galore! (2012):

Write down a sequence of positive integers that never decreases. The list can include duplicates. As an example, here’s a list of primes:

2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13

Call the sequence p_n. Now, a “frequency sequence” records the number of members less than 1, less than 2, and so on. For the list of primes above, the frequency sequence is:

0, 0, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6

Pleasingly, the frequency sequence of the frequency sequence of p_n is p_n. That is, if we take the frequency sequence of the list 0, 0, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6 above, we get 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13 again.

Now add position numbers to each of the two lists, p_n and its frequency sequence — that is, add 1 to the first element of each, 2 to the second, and so on. With the primes that gives us:

P_n: 3, 5, 8, 11, 16, 19 …

Q_n: 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20 …

These two sequences will always be complementary — all the counting numbers appear, but they’re split between the two sequences, with no duplicates.

French mathematician Jean Paul de Gua de Malves discovered this three-dimensional analogue of the Pythagorean theorem in the 18th century.

If a tetrahedron has a right-angled corner (such as the corner of a cube), then the square of the area of the face opposite that corner is the sum of the squares of the areas of the other three faces.

Above,

In Pascal’s triangle, each number is the sum of the two immediately above it:

In 1972, Henry Mann and Daniel Shanks found a curious connection between the triangle and prime numbers. Stagger the triangle’s rows so that row n starts at column 2n:

Now a column number is prime precisely when the numbers in that column are each divisible by their row number. For instance, in the diagram above, column 13 has two entries — 10, which is divisible by 5, and 6, which is divisible by 6 — so 13 is prime. The numbers in column 12 are not all evenly divisible by their row numbers, so 12 is not prime.

“It’s a nifty and surprising result,” writes James Tanton in Mathematics Galore! (2012), “but it is not a formula that allows us to find prime numbers with ease.”

(Henry B. Mann and Daniel Shanks, “A Necessary and Sufficient Condition for Primality, and Its Source,” Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A 13:1 [1972], 131-134.)

If two unit circles are tangent externally as shown, and from a point P on one circle rays PQ and PR are drawn intersecting both circles, then arc lengths x + y = z.

From Claudi Alsina and Roger B. Nelsen, Icons of Mathematics, 2011.

The ordinary tetrahedron, or triangular pyramid, has no diagonals — every pair of vertices is joined by an edge. How many other polyhedra have this feature? In 1949, Hungarian topologist Ákos Császár found the specimen above, which has 7 vertices, 14 faces, and 21 edges.

But so far these two are the only residents in this particular zoo. The next possible such creature would have 44 faces and 66 edges, but this isn’t realizable as a polyhedron. Whether there’s anything beyond that is not known.

Suppose you hire two proofreaders to go through the same manuscript independently. The first reports A mistakes, the second reports B mistakes, and C mistakes are reported by both. How can you estimate how many errors remain undiscovered?

Let M be the total number of mistakes in the manuscript. Then the number undiscovered by the two proofreaders is M – (A + B – C). Let p and q be the probabilities that the first and second proofreaders, respectively, notice any given mistake. Then A ≈ pM and B ≈ qM. And because they work independently, the chance that they both find a given mistake is C ≈ pqM.

But now

and the number of misprints that remain unnoticed is just

This means that as long as the proofreaders work independently, you can estimate the number of errors they’ve overlooked without even knowing how skillful they are. If they find a large number of mistakes in common but relatively few independently, then the manuscript is probably relatively clean. But if they generate large independent lists of errors with few in common, there are probably many mistakes remaining to be found (which matches our intuition).

(George Pólya, “Probabilities in Proofreading,” American Mathematical Monthly 83:1 [January 1976], 42.)