I think they’re trying to say that the amount of brownie is dictated by the amount of batter you have, and you can use one tray as many times as necessary to use up all the batter
True but I think they’re saying that in their typical use-case, one versus two batches doesn’t practically matter. Now, that might be true, but that doesn’t change the fact that every container has a maximum usable volume which would be limited per-batch, and that’s what the comment they replied to was talking about.
It’s just really strange and I know it doesn’t matter but also this way of thinking is fascinating to me.
Originally bringing total pan volume into it confused me, a baking pan has an upper limit to how much brownie you can bake per cycle in it, but by the time you are anywhere near that limit you are probably already better off using a second pan.
The example brownies from the picture are nowhere near that limit, so if there was a moderate but significant decrease in the volume of the pan in the change to the squares It doesn’t seem like it should be a problem even on a per cycle basis. Even so, the cost of doing an additional cycle of baking is not that high anyways.
The main factor in how much volume of brownie you make will be the amount of brownie batter you make. Non-euclidean space isn’t required to bake an additional 25% or so of brownies by volume in that pan, and so your reply seemed snide, and I responded kurtly.
baking pan has an upper limit to how much brownie you can bake per cycle in it
Okay, and I just want to check - do you think that this limit - which I assume would be measured in volume - might be what the person was referring to by the “volume” of the pan? Or do you think they meant something else? If so, what?
I’m pretty sure the pan has a finite volume, unless it has some sort of space-folding technology.
I love my 4 dimensional brownies! You can fit so many edges onto them!
It’s like L-space from the Unseen University Library, but it’s B-space. It contains every conceivable recipe of brownies.
They’re reusable though
Okay so this doesn’t matter and I don’t want to argue, so I’ll just honestly ask - what do you mean? I am genuinely confused.
I think they’re trying to say that the amount of brownie is dictated by the amount of batter you have, and you can use one tray as many times as necessary to use up all the batter
But the amount of brownie is also determined by time spent baking
True but I think they’re saying that in their typical use-case, one versus two batches doesn’t practically matter. Now, that might be true, but that doesn’t change the fact that every container has a maximum usable volume which would be limited per-batch, and that’s what the comment they replied to was talking about.
It’s just really strange and I know it doesn’t matter but also this way of thinking is fascinating to me.
Two batches definitely matters to me. I’m not spending twice as much time baking! I want a big pan with room to make all my brownies at once.
Originally bringing total pan volume into it confused me, a baking pan has an upper limit to how much brownie you can bake per cycle in it, but by the time you are anywhere near that limit you are probably already better off using a second pan.
The example brownies from the picture are nowhere near that limit, so if there was a moderate but significant decrease in the volume of the pan in the change to the squares It doesn’t seem like it should be a problem even on a per cycle basis. Even so, the cost of doing an additional cycle of baking is not that high anyways.
The main factor in how much volume of brownie you make will be the amount of brownie batter you make. Non-euclidean space isn’t required to bake an additional 25% or so of brownies by volume in that pan, and so your reply seemed snide, and I responded kurtly.
Okay, and I just want to check - do you think that this limit - which I assume would be measured in volume - might be what the person was referring to by the “volume” of the pan? Or do you think they meant something else? If so, what?
That’s probably because it was.