Round and Round
Key topics
The mind-bending puzzle of whether a man walking around a tree has "gone around" a squirrel simultaneously circling the tree has sparked a lively debate. As commenters dug in, some argued that the man's completion of the tree's circumference means he's technically gone around the squirrel, even if he never caught up to it. Others pointed out that the relative motion between the two is what matters, drawing analogies to the moon's orbit around the Earth and the sun. The discussion reveals that the answer hinges on how one defines "go around," with some insisting it's a matter of semantics rather than physics.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Active discussionFirst comment
56s
Peak period
20
0-2h
Avg / period
6.4
Based on 45 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Jan 2, 2026 at 3:16 AM EST
8 days ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Jan 2, 2026 at 3:17 AM EST
56s after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
20 comments in 0-2h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Jan 3, 2026 at 4:07 AM EST
7 days ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Has the man have gone around the squirrel and the squirrel around the man?
If it's only radii less than the other, where is the limit?
But yeah if your circuit completely fits in the other person's circuit, then you've been gone around.
https://science.nasa.gov/resource/the-moons-rotation/
From which reference frame would it not rotate?
2. Yes, everything "at rest" on earth is in fact rotating at the rate the earth rotates. If you stand on the equator at midday and do not rotate you will be standing on your head at midnight.
If you rotate as part of some larger rotating thing then you still rotate. (You also move around.) It's all absolute.
This is always true. The origin is just a thing that other things are relative to. It's just as possible to define an origin un the real world as it is on a piece of graph paper.
From the point of view of the moon, for the purposes of action due to gravity, anything on Earth is essentially part of the Earth, not an entity that is massive enough to be considered separately. The aggregate centre of mass is what counts. Similar for the Sun looking at the Earth/Moon system: from that PoV Earth+Moon is it a single mass with a centre somewhere between the two major masses that form it.
If the Moon where sufficiently consistent in its shape and density, it could rotate freely in any direction while orbiting the Earth, that fact that it is more dense on one side means that it is more energy efficient for it to spin in step with its orbit such that the dense side keeps facing us. If something massive hit the moon (let's assume this somehow happens without significantly affecting its orbit or causing significant problems for Earth too!) it might push the rotation off for a bit, but it would slowly be pulled back into sync. If something sufficiently massive simply landed on the moon, that would affect the mass distribution and the exact face that points at us would slowly change to reach a new equilibrium.
I'm probably butchering this, but in my mind it is something like:
1. From the squirrels frame of reference and local coordinate system, the man has remained "in front" of the squirrel. The squirrel is orienting and rotating in sync with the man and therefore has not observed that the man has "gone round" it.
2. From our perspective (and on reflection from the man), the man has circled the squirrel in the global coordinate system of the scene.
As the reader we assume that our perspective is the authoritative one, but I am sure the squirrel disagrees.
In terms of this post - I suppose technically Earth does NOT circle the Moon, because we never see its back!
A group of people decided to seat together and talk about some casual math problems
The one problem I keep remembering is a bet about 1000 men walking by on the street in a row. Random chance is not guaranteed - especially when it's suddenly a parade :)
Yes technically he did circle the squirrel from his reference point, what of it? that wasn't the point. The point was he couldn't see the squirrel, and this question is only tangentially related.
> Some years ago, being with a camping party in the mountains, I returned from a solitary ramble to find everyone engaged in a ferocious metaphysical dispute. The corpus of the dispute was a squirrel—a live squirrel supposed to be clinging to one side of a tree-trunk; while over against the tree’s opposite side a human being was imagined to stand. This human witness tries to get sight of the squirrel by moving rapidly round the tree, but no matter how fast he goes, the squirrel moves as fast in the opposite direction, and always keeps the tree between himself and the man, so that never a glimpse of him is caught. The resultant metaphysical problem now is this: DOES THE MAN GO ROUND THE SQUIRREL OR NOT? He goes round the tree, sure enough, and the squirrel is on the tree; but does he go round the squirrel? In the unlimited leisure of the wilderness, discussion had been worn threadbare. Everyone had taken sides, and was obstinate; and the numbers on both sides were even. Each side, when I appeared, therefore appealed to me to make it a majority. Mindful of the scholastic adage that whenever you meet a contradiction you must make a distinction, I immediately sought and found one, as follows: “Which party is right,” I said, “depends on what you PRACTICALLY MEAN by ’going round’ the squirrel. If you mean passing from the north of him to the east, then to the south, then to the west, and then to the north of him again, obviously the man does go round him, for he occupies these successive positions. But if on the contrary you mean being first in front of him, then on the right of him, then behind him, then on his left, and finally in front again, it is quite as obvious that the man fails to go round him, for by the compensating movements the squirrel makes, he keeps his belly turned towards the man all the time, and his back turned away. Make the distinction, and there is no occasion for any farther dispute. You are both right and both wrong according as you conceive the verb ’to go round’ in one practical fashion or the other.”
— William James, Pragmatism, 1907
(Of course, the text in the linked article predates Gardner’s work.)
https://www.quantamagazine.org/can-math-help-you-escape-a-hu...