I don't have anything useful to say, but: "Serge figured, it was a matter of unfolding the box, turning a three-dimensional object into a one-dimensional surface"
Now how does one do that? :) And he shouldn't have had to used the Pythagorean theorem on just a one dimensional line...
Sigh. Just thought it was funny, since the article was about how programming/technical jargon goes over the heads of jurors, the FBI, etc. but seems like the article writer isn't immune to it either :)
There are multiple ways to unfold a box into 2 dimensions. For example, see this printable pattern that you can try at home [1].
Also, how else would you determine the distance between two coordinates in a plane without using the Pythagorean theorem [2]? It's not like he could use a measuring tape in an imaginary, unfolded room.
EDIT: I reread your post and see that you are pointing out a typo. The phrase "one-dimensional surface" was obviously meant to be "two-dimensional surface." A one-dimensional surface is non-sense.
Now how does one do that? :) And he shouldn't have had to used the Pythagorean theorem on just a one dimensional line...
Sigh. Just thought it was funny, since the article was about how programming/technical jargon goes over the heads of jurors, the FBI, etc. but seems like the article writer isn't immune to it either :)