Based on that analogy, the fastest result would not necessarily be from the most distant-efficient (offset) path, but possibly from an approach that was more aware of the limitations of the mower (turning radius, acceleration, and so on), like most modern HSM toolpaths. If the ratio works out the same as for, say, Volumill, then we'd want to increase the feedrate of our ordinary 10kph mower to, say, 40kph.
Now THAT would make mowing more fun.
which reads (out loud) very similarly to "123+456=579-54=525", which is, as the article points out, incorrect. Don't be too quick to blame calculators when longhand methods introduce similar errors.
Interesting, perhaps, but not useful.
All the more reason to teach it. We should be trying to get students interested in science.
Link to Original Source