Dicing an Onion, the Mathematically Optimal Way(pudding.cool)
pudding.cool
Dicing an Onion, the Mathematically Optimal Way
https://pudding.cool/2025/08/onions/
154 comments
This is fun!
I really struggled to effectively cut onions until this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwRttSfnfcc
Haven't looked back since.
I really struggled to effectively cut onions until this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwRttSfnfcc
Haven't looked back since.
Hopefully you're not bothering to core the top and the bottom of the onion; fussy, a waste of time, and works against his later goal of keeping the root intact while dicing.
Yeah you know better than a classically trained French chef. LOL. Do you think he never considered that?
Yes, but instead of considering the pedigree of the instructor, you could also just cut the fucking onion.
I do it more or less this way - except I keep the root intact until the end. It keeps the onion structurally intact until I'm done with the dicing. At which point, the root takes a single chop to lop off, and then the whole thing scatters into tiny, mostly uniform dices. It's quite satisfying.
I also keep the root. But I am on the radial team!
Chef Jean Pierre is the best, he explains so good that I really need to listen once to remember forever. Before discovering him, I wasn't interested in cooking at all and I listened to all the other chefs like Ramsay and Oliver but they don't tell you the complete story.
Why does he peel the oño like an orange when he’s about to cut it in half, why not cut it first?
Skin gets into the onion.
If the skin gets into the onion when you cut it in half, you need a sharper knife my friend
Ah the famous oñyo video
Sorry, but I had to link to this video as you said "effectively": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQgIwwKmjdo
Lol, what an amateur hour :)
https://old.reddit.com/r/FastWorkers/comments/1dl1xpz/fast_o...
https://old.reddit.com/r/FastWorkers/comments/1dl1xpz/fast_o...
I came up with this way by trial and error. Though I don't pare away the root. Just slice is off when dicing is done. Removing the roots helps a lot
This is silly. I’ve seen Indian street vendors do it the most efficient way. You tilt the knife with the front part down and the back maybe a quarter inch above the surface. That way as you slice the onion the little quarter inch holds it together as you turn it 90 degrees and make the perpendicular set of cuts.
Yep. I arrived at the same solution after trial and error.
It’s a natural convergence point for the technique if you want to avoid disproportionately large pieces that come from the sides.
That may be the most useful thing I've seen on the internet in months.
Thanks much!
Thanks much!
> It turns out that making horizontal cuts almost never helps with consistency.
They made the horizontal cuts evenly spaced between the cutting surface and the top of the onion, which is nonsensical to me. I believe that a single horizontal cut at around 15-20% height would be better for uniformity than a horizontal cut at 50% height.
They made the horizontal cuts evenly spaced between the cutting surface and the top of the onion, which is nonsensical to me. I believe that a single horizontal cut at around 15-20% height would be better for uniformity than a horizontal cut at 50% height.
Which is exactly how I was taught to do it while working in kitchens 25 years ago.
The other thing is that this seems to ignore that the onion is round in the other direction too. As far as I can see, it only covers the first dice cut.
The other thing is that this seems to ignore that the onion is round in the other direction too. As far as I can see, it only covers the first dice cut.
The planar cuts just determine the thickness of the dice. You just want to make them equal to the thickness of the rings.
Yeah, that's the way that I cut onions: you make vertical cuts followed by one single horizontal cut slightly above the cutting board.
This way of calculating doesn't take into account the creative ways you can make cuts. You could also do mostly vertical slices, and then slightly angle inwards when you do the final few cuts. That would get you a more optimal distribution as well.
This way of calculating doesn't take into account the creative ways you can make cuts. You could also do mostly vertical slices, and then slightly angle inwards when you do the final few cuts. That would get you a more optimal distribution as well.
A lot of people insist that this is the way. However, at some point, I figured out that making the horizontal cut (or cuts) before you make vertical cuts is a lot easier. You can do it by simply putting the onion with the root on the board and cutting down at an angle of about 5-10 degrees. When the tip of the knife hits the board, simply don't press down all the way to keep the root intact. Then put it down normally and make the vertical cuts. You can easily manage 3 or 4 horizontal cuts this way. And there's no awkward cutting towards yourself with a sharp knife. All this business of first making lots of vertical cuts and then attempting a horizontal cut is a lot more fiddly. The vertical cuts affect the structural integrity of the onion. This makes the horizontal cuts harder. And it also makes the process of dicing harder.
Of course, as the article points out, the horizontal cuts don't really do much that a chef should care about. You can dice an onion super fine with just vertical cuts very close together. And it's a lot faster and easier. You might angle some of the cuts towards the edges. But honestly, even that is unnecessary and a bit overkill. With a good knife, you can put the vertical cuts really close together. So close that any kind of angle would mean the cuts cross each other. Once you are that close, a horizontal cut really does not matter. And if you do a rough cut, the size matters even less.
If you are interested in this topic, there's a French chef on Youtube called Jean Pierre who is full of practical wisdom and techniques. You can learn a lot from him. And he's highly entertaining to watch too. He's very opinionated on onions. Or Onyo as he pronounces it. You won't see him making horizontal cuts, ever.
Of course, as the article points out, the horizontal cuts don't really do much that a chef should care about. You can dice an onion super fine with just vertical cuts very close together. And it's a lot faster and easier. You might angle some of the cuts towards the edges. But honestly, even that is unnecessary and a bit overkill. With a good knife, you can put the vertical cuts really close together. So close that any kind of angle would mean the cuts cross each other. Once you are that close, a horizontal cut really does not matter. And if you do a rough cut, the size matters even less.
If you are interested in this topic, there's a French chef on Youtube called Jean Pierre who is full of practical wisdom and techniques. You can learn a lot from him. And he's highly entertaining to watch too. He's very opinionated on onions. Or Onyo as he pronounces it. You won't see him making horizontal cuts, ever.
Yes! They had all those visualisations and you could see the problem areas from vertical slicing were at the bottom of the onion, a couple of horizontal slices down there would have given the best solution.
[deleted]
Evenly spaced horizontal cuts might make sense from a modeling standpoint, but not from a practical one. In real-life onion dicing, no one's slicing horizontally all the way up like that, it’s usually one or two low cuts to help break up the base
A single low horizontal cut (15-20% from bottom) specifically targets the elongated base pieces - this would likely outperform the evenly-spaced horizontal cuts they tested while remaining practical for home cooks.
This ignores the obvious solution of not cutting all the way through. If every other radial cut is only through half the layers, you avoid making the inner pieces too small. It's funny how common it is for people to claim some sort of optimality with lots of math and analysis while completely failing to consider a better possibility. Never take seriously claims that someone found a "mathematically optimal" way of doing something. They didn't.
But is uniformitiy the goal?
If you want diced onions, the cook generally wants onion chunks below a certain cubic mass, so they cook and dissolve easily and uniformly. It does not matter if some pieces are 50% of that size, some are 20% and some are 80%.
With that, 1-2 horizontal slices and a bunch of straight downward slices are the safest and easiest way to achieve that.
That technique also expands to onion rings, sauteed onions and such.
If you want diced onions, the cook generally wants onion chunks below a certain cubic mass, so they cook and dissolve easily and uniformly. It does not matter if some pieces are 50% of that size, some are 20% and some are 80%.
With that, 1-2 horizontal slices and a bunch of straight downward slices are the safest and easiest way to achieve that.
That technique also expands to onion rings, sauteed onions and such.
Yeah, measuring standard deviation from the average isn't an accurate way of scoring - "too big" pieces are worse than "too small"
Uniformity matters for even cooking.
If some pieces are twice the size of your average size, these pieces will be raw, when the others are done.
And if you have some pieces that are half the size of the average they will burn by the time the rest are done.
If some pieces are twice the size of your average size, these pieces will be raw, when the others are done.
And if you have some pieces that are half the size of the average they will burn by the time the rest are done.
[deleted]
As long as no chunk is big enough to stay crunchy while the rest caramelizes, you're good
Burnt bits add unpleasant acridness to the finished dish. And pieces that are 20% of the general size are very like to be overcooked when the rest are properly cooked, so limiting those is important.
IMHO yes. Sometimes if the deviation is too big yo can get coocked, overcooked, and mostly raw pieces in the same pan, and that's heavily undesirable.
When cutting potatoes into chunks, for something like a stew, I often find myself thinking about this problem, and how I would write a program for a robot to do it.
They are fairly well approximated as ellipsoids of different sizes. Typically, I want pieces around half the volume of the smallest potatoes, but with the range of sizes, this means cutting the larger ones into at least 5 pieces. While it would be simple to make parallel slices giving equal volume, these would have very different shape to the halved smalls. Some can be quartered to give nice chunks, others into thirds with 2 perpendicular cuts...
They are fairly well approximated as ellipsoids of different sizes. Typically, I want pieces around half the volume of the smallest potatoes, but with the range of sizes, this means cutting the larger ones into at least 5 pieces. While it would be simple to make parallel slices giving equal volume, these would have very different shape to the halved smalls. Some can be quartered to give nice chunks, others into thirds with 2 perpendicular cuts...
Yeah it's an interesting theoretical problem but the practical applicability is limited.
The most uniform pieces come from this onion dicer: https://latacocarts.com/products/onion-dicer
I used to work in fast food and this bad boy has a rate of 0.5 onions/sec and all of the resulting pieces are perfectly uniform squares. If you've ever wondered where the perfectly diced onions garnishing your burger came from, this is it.
It was a pain to clean though, as the blades were exceedingly sharp. Someone would cut their fingers about once a week on those things.
I used to work in fast food and this bad boy has a rate of 0.5 onions/sec and all of the resulting pieces are perfectly uniform squares. If you've ever wondered where the perfectly diced onions garnishing your burger came from, this is it.
It was a pain to clean though, as the blades were exceedingly sharp. Someone would cut their fingers about once a week on those things.
> It was a pain to clean though, as the blades were exceedingly sharp. Someone would cut their fingers about once a week on those things.
Much better than the various food cutting tools available to consumers which (apart from knives) are always exceedingly dull IME to the point of being useless. An the weird shapes make them impossible to sharpen yourself.
Much better than the various food cutting tools available to consumers which (apart from knives) are always exceedingly dull IME to the point of being useless. An the weird shapes make them impossible to sharpen yourself.
Not dishwasher safe?
These commercial tools are often odd-shaped (this one is a foot and a half tall) and not dishwasher friendly. Even if you found a way to somehow fit it into the dishwasher, the jets may not reach the blades.
I have a knife I use only to cut veggies, I never wash it with soap, just rinse it off and put it back in the block.
Veggies aren't meat.
This is the same for my frying pans. Just rinse them. When was the last time you saw someone use soap to clean a bbq?
Veggies aren't meat.
This is the same for my frying pans. Just rinse them. When was the last time you saw someone use soap to clean a bbq?
This is why you're way more likely to get food poisoning at home. Or at least at this guys home
You'll never get food poisoning from a frying pan, because you don't use soap. Or have you heard of people getting food poisoning, from not washing their bbq with soap?
Note I didn't say pots. Boiling isn't anywhere near as hot as frying.
The knife? The horrors! I do rinse it and remove all biological matter. Yes, there's still some there. I assure you the wooden block people use, is teeming with bacteria, so do you wash the knife before using it?
I wonder. I often pick fruit from trees, sometimes spit on it and then brush it off on my shirt. Do you do the same?
When you get home from the grocery store, do you wash all your veggies with soap? Or do you just use water? What about your fruit? All washed with soap?
If not, I assure you the fruit and vegetables are far worse than the knife, rinsed off.
And yes, I do wash my hands before preparing food -- and just before eating it. Veggies just aren't meat.
If they were, you'd never see someone eating an apple right from the store, a tree, or not washing them with soap first. I mean honestly, the grocery store apple has often traveled thousands of miles in a crate on a ship, been handled by people putting the food out, been handled by other customers, you, been in a bag that isn't sterilized.
I wonder again, how many use soap on that apple?
Of course when I eat an apple all that's left is the stem, so people are picky anyhow.
Note I didn't say pots. Boiling isn't anywhere near as hot as frying.
The knife? The horrors! I do rinse it and remove all biological matter. Yes, there's still some there. I assure you the wooden block people use, is teeming with bacteria, so do you wash the knife before using it?
I wonder. I often pick fruit from trees, sometimes spit on it and then brush it off on my shirt. Do you do the same?
When you get home from the grocery store, do you wash all your veggies with soap? Or do you just use water? What about your fruit? All washed with soap?
If not, I assure you the fruit and vegetables are far worse than the knife, rinsed off.
And yes, I do wash my hands before preparing food -- and just before eating it. Veggies just aren't meat.
If they were, you'd never see someone eating an apple right from the store, a tree, or not washing them with soap first. I mean honestly, the grocery store apple has often traveled thousands of miles in a crate on a ship, been handled by people putting the food out, been handled by other customers, you, been in a bag that isn't sterilized.
I wonder again, how many use soap on that apple?
Of course when I eat an apple all that's left is the stem, so people are picky anyhow.
Wood chopping boards are actually not teeming with bacteria.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0362028X2...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0362028X2...
Wood blocks, you put knives in like this:
https://boutiquedelabalayeuse.com/products/bloc-a-couteaux-p...
They're exceptionally popular in many places. It's not like people wash the holes, some are decades old. And at no point did I say they were 'teeming' with bacteria, I used it as an example of a thing not cleaned.
It's not like stainless is teeming with bacteria either, espcially when you rinse a knife off. It's far less porous and craggily than those wooden blocks after a decade of use.
The logic is simple; compare these things to other actions. Otherwise it's all show and theatre to make one feel good, like the TSA.
https://boutiquedelabalayeuse.com/products/bloc-a-couteaux-p...
They're exceptionally popular in many places. It's not like people wash the holes, some are decades old. And at no point did I say they were 'teeming' with bacteria, I used it as an example of a thing not cleaned.
It's not like stainless is teeming with bacteria either, espcially when you rinse a knife off. It's far less porous and craggily than those wooden blocks after a decade of use.
The logic is simple; compare these things to other actions. Otherwise it's all show and theatre to make one feel good, like the TSA.
It's not about cleaning, wood has antibacterial properties, it sucks the moisture out of bacteria and kills them. That's true for both wood chopping boards and blocks. There is plenty of literature about it: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266676572...
> And at no point did I say they were 'teeming' with bacteria
Is this not a direct quote from your previous comment: "I assure you the wooden block people use, is teeming with bacteria"?
> And at no point did I say they were 'teeming' with bacteria
Is this not a direct quote from your previous comment: "I assure you the wooden block people use, is teeming with bacteria"?
Apparently so, re: teeming.
But the problem isn't just wood, it's also long term dirt accumulation. And this study is absolutely not validation of your point, stating "Despite the many investigations on the topic, the antibacterial activity of wood is far from fully understood", while also saying different species, and hard vs softwood all have different tested effectiveness.
This is also about dry wood, yet I've seen countless people put their knifes away wet/damp. Some of these blocks rarely have time to dry.
I've also seen mould growing on soap, damp debris, and these are things which end up in the block's slots... never washed or cleaned.
I'm not saying don't use them, I'm saying it's silly to wash frying pans with soap, or vegetables only use knives with soap. Not needed.
But the problem isn't just wood, it's also long term dirt accumulation. And this study is absolutely not validation of your point, stating "Despite the many investigations on the topic, the antibacterial activity of wood is far from fully understood", while also saying different species, and hard vs softwood all have different tested effectiveness.
This is also about dry wood, yet I've seen countless people put their knifes away wet/damp. Some of these blocks rarely have time to dry.
I've also seen mould growing on soap, damp debris, and these are things which end up in the block's slots... never washed or cleaned.
I'm not saying don't use them, I'm saying it's silly to wash frying pans with soap, or vegetables only use knives with soap. Not needed.
Just because I can't have my cooking utensils sterile 100% of the time doesn't mean I can't put minimal effort into reducing the risk. I don't want to cook on frying pans covered in rancid oil and dust. The recommendation is to use soap even for cast iron pans.
Maybe some people do, but I also don't put any wet dishes and cutlery away, I have a dish drainer. If I found my soap was growing mould, I'd throw it in the bin, not write it off as a thing that happens and there's no need to worry about it.
> this study is absolutely not validation of your point, stating "Despite the many investigations on the topic, the antibacterial activity of wood is far from fully understood"
This is standard boilerplate present in nearly any paper, scientists never claim that a topic is fully understood and doesn't require any further research.
Maybe some people do, but I also don't put any wet dishes and cutlery away, I have a dish drainer. If I found my soap was growing mould, I'd throw it in the bin, not write it off as a thing that happens and there's no need to worry about it.
> this study is absolutely not validation of your point, stating "Despite the many investigations on the topic, the antibacterial activity of wood is far from fully understood"
This is standard boilerplate present in nearly any paper, scientists never claim that a topic is fully understood and doesn't require any further research.
The point is, you're using TSA logic, and made up issues like dust and rancid oil exhibit that.
I also notice you haven't responded about washing food with soap. Or about BBQing. Please don't tell me you throw away canned food past its best before, too. That would crush my soul further.
If you do, please wait until tomorrow to do so, so I may steel myself for the shock.
I also notice you haven't responded about washing food with soap. Or about BBQing. Please don't tell me you throw away canned food past its best before, too. That would crush my soul further.
If you do, please wait until tomorrow to do so, so I may steel myself for the shock.
I don't know what TSA logic is. Oil absolutely gets gooey and disgusting if left for a few days. It's fine if that's not an issue for you, I shouldn't criticise people's personal taste, but I prefer not to eat that.
On your other questions, I will refer you back to my earlier comment in case you missed it: "Just because I can't have my cooking utensils sterile 100% of the time doesn't mean I can't put minimal effort into reducing the risk."
On your other questions, I will refer you back to my earlier comment in case you missed it: "Just because I can't have my cooking utensils sterile 100% of the time doesn't mean I can't put minimal effort into reducing the risk."
This is absurd. Do you also worry about particulates in the ear you're breathing all the time?
To translate the final answer from math to human (as I’m going to be explaining this to my mother when I chat with her next!):
Imagine the half onion is a half rainbow. You know there’s another half rainbow lurking below the surface, the onion’s ghost of the sphere it once was. Place your knife as usual for each of your ten dice cuts, but instead of cutting straight down towards the cutting board, angle it slightly inward towards the end of the onion’s ghostly half-rainbow sphere below the board. Check your fingers for safety and then make your cut. Assuming your knife isn’t a plasma cutter, you’ll be stopped at the cutting board without ever reaching the onion at the end of the rainbow, and that’s cool. Set your knife at the next dice point and try again :)
(This still improves on the other dicing cases and only costs 1% uniformity by using 100% radius as the target.)
Imagine the half onion is a half rainbow. You know there’s another half rainbow lurking below the surface, the onion’s ghost of the sphere it once was. Place your knife as usual for each of your ten dice cuts, but instead of cutting straight down towards the cutting board, angle it slightly inward towards the end of the onion’s ghostly half-rainbow sphere below the board. Check your fingers for safety and then make your cut. Assuming your knife isn’t a plasma cutter, you’ll be stopped at the cutting board without ever reaching the onion at the end of the rainbow, and that’s cool. Set your knife at the next dice point and try again :)
(This still improves on the other dicing cases and only costs 1% uniformity by using 100% radius as the target.)
> Place your knife as usual for each of your ten dice cuts,
what does this mean, exactly? I don't cut onions. Also I assume there is some pre-step where you cut the onion in half on some axis, but I don't know which.
what does this mean, exactly? I don't cut onions. Also I assume there is some pre-step where you cut the onion in half on some axis, but I don't know which.
If you inspect the onion diagrams in the article carefully, they show various ways to cut an onion, as if origami diagrams but with knives. Still, I think you’ll want to learn the traditional methods of dicing an onion independently first, and then with that knowledge revisit this article and my description; this is last-10% optimization work that hinges on knowing that first-90% of how to dice an onion at all.
If you don’t cut onions you probably shouldn’t bother with this thread. Or at least watch a video
gate keeping onion cutting? really?
Standard deviation is a poor measure because you care more about avoiding big pieces than small ones. Penalizing for having a few tiny pieces doesn’t make sense.
You probably don’t even care about the “standard” deviation at all. You care about the deviation from some desired size. Probably the more accurate problem is “what is the fewest number of straight cuts I can make such that all pieces are below some target size”.
Thank you, this exactly! Seems like you want to reduce the standard deviation only considering pieces that are larger than the mean, but still relative to the mean. Would be very curious to see the results redone using that approach.
A few tiny bits will just melt away or brown faster, no big deal. But one big undercooked chunk in a bite of otherwise soft onions? That's noticeable
Small nitpick, it's not just the variation in area that you'd care about, but the variation in shape. Two pieces of the same area/volume can cook very differently depending on the shape. The thing is, there isn't a single canonical metric for measuring shape similarity afaik, but you could pick something e.g. based on Hausdorff distance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hausdorff_distance#Definition A quick search leads to some cool papers https://webspace.science.uu.nl/~veltk101/publications/art/sm...
Bringing Hausdorff distance into a discussion about onion slicing. Love it.
Enjoyed reading this. I've followed J Kenji Lopez-alt for a while and I've practiced the "aim below" method for a few years now.
I also like that the article ends with the perfect Kenji-ism. "Yes, technically my method is statistically ideal, but like, it's home cooking and it doesn't matter, heterogenity isn't the enemy". Reminds me of Adam Ragusea (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cWRCldqrxM), we're not making fancy french cuisine, we don't need a perfect brunoise!
I also like that the article ends with the perfect Kenji-ism. "Yes, technically my method is statistically ideal, but like, it's home cooking and it doesn't matter, heterogenity isn't the enemy". Reminds me of Adam Ragusea (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cWRCldqrxM), we're not making fancy french cuisine, we don't need a perfect brunoise!
Someone, somewhere, will now spend time growing square onions to fix the problem. Probably someone in Japan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_watermelon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_watermelon
It's funny seeing people dunking on taking this much effort to analyze onion cuts. The rewards for improving your onion dice are indeed probably low. But in mainstream western cooking, you need to do it almost every meal, and the analysis/learning is a one-time cost rather than a cost applied at every prep. Seems like an extremely reasonable thing to noodle on!
People are dunking on the fact that "mathematically optimal" is meaningless in this situation.
Even Lopez-Alt suggests, "It matters far more for winning internet debates and solving interesting math problems than it does for cooking."
Even Lopez-Alt suggests, "It matters far more for winning internet debates and solving interesting math problems than it does for cooking."
The mathematical verification doesn't matter, but:
* Radial is more convenient than the classic horizontal cut.
* Radial with an origin below the cutting board is a better outcome than naive radial with almost zero extra effort.
All this to say: it was worth figuring that out!
* Radial is more convenient than the classic horizontal cut.
* Radial with an origin below the cutting board is a better outcome than naive radial with almost zero extra effort.
All this to say: it was worth figuring that out!
Except:
* The spacing and angle of your cuts is going to vary much more if you are doing something more complex than top down cuts negating any gain in consistency.
* The outcome of the final dish isn't really any better so it doesn't matter at all.
* The spacing and angle of your cuts is going to vary much more if you are doing something more complex than top down cuts negating any gain in consistency.
* The outcome of the final dish isn't really any better so it doesn't matter at all.
What I want is a cutting technique that’s good enough while still being practical for people to do. I am not sure I’m dexterous enough to slightly and consistently tilt the knife as I go through the onion.
For sure this research can be nominated for an Ig Nobel Prize :-)
On a more serious note, thanks for posting this and letting me (us?) know about "The Pudding".
On a more serious note, thanks for posting this and letting me (us?) know about "The Pudding".
It's a fun intellectual puzzle, but I find it questionable that onion dice uniformity is always a worthwhile goal. Sure, it ensures more even cooking, but in most dishes, is that desirable? Texture and contrast are nice.
I dislike easily 90%+ of the images I recognize as AI-generated, but the ones on this internet web site I think are a good use of the tech.
There was no AI used on this website!
Well, so much for that sentiment! Those onion letters definitely struck me as the original "look we can make chairs out of avocados" use case for dall-e. I guess it's not surprising that good looking AI images turn out to not be AI images in the first place.
[deleted]
Source?
He's one of the three named authors on the article. I'd be interested to know how the onion text was made.
Looks like the font predates this article:
https://handmadefont.com/shop/oniotype-font/
https://kottke.org/25/08/the-red-onion-font
https://handmadefont.com/shop/oniotype-font/
https://kottke.org/25/08/the-red-onion-font
So using some complicated angle gets you 4% less std dev than just doing it the easy way that everone already does it. Ok.
I make fresh Pico de Gallo twice a week so I chop a lot of onions. Besides an even dice, I’m interested in not dicing my fingertips. Radial slicing a 180 segment or adding horizontal slices is too unstable.
My method is to cut in quarters, give a quarter a vertical dice, rotate 90, do another vertical dice, then go longitudinal.
My method is to cut in quarters, give a quarter a vertical dice, rotate 90, do another vertical dice, then go longitudinal.
Why limit it to just two horizontal cuts?
I’ve always just made equal horizontal and vertical cuts, then slice the onion crosswise.
This results in pretty much no large pieces, and only some smaller pieces (which I prefer over larger ones, anyway).
I don’t care about standard deviation — I only care about minimizing the maximum size (but still without turning them to mush).
(Also, I know this was more of a fun mathematical look at chopping onions vs. practical. But still the “two horizontal cuts” thing seemed to be practical guidance, when it seemed like just equal horizontal and vertical cuts is far superior. But, granted, it’s a little trickier to do.)
EDIT: looking at Youtube, looks like the 2-cut thing is normal. But adding a few more cuts isn’t that much harder, and eliminates the larger pieces from the 2-cut method. I’ll stick to my method, even if it’s a little more work.
I’ve always just made equal horizontal and vertical cuts, then slice the onion crosswise.
This results in pretty much no large pieces, and only some smaller pieces (which I prefer over larger ones, anyway).
I don’t care about standard deviation — I only care about minimizing the maximum size (but still without turning them to mush).
(Also, I know this was more of a fun mathematical look at chopping onions vs. practical. But still the “two horizontal cuts” thing seemed to be practical guidance, when it seemed like just equal horizontal and vertical cuts is far superior. But, granted, it’s a little trickier to do.)
EDIT: looking at Youtube, looks like the 2-cut thing is normal. But adding a few more cuts isn’t that much harder, and eliminates the larger pieces from the 2-cut method. I’ll stick to my method, even if it’s a little more work.
Horizontal cuts does next to nothing, the onion is already "cut" horizontally.
In my experience it does worse, as the onion gets unstable to do the vertical cuts.
In my experience it does worse, as the onion gets unstable to do the vertical cuts.
I mean, it’s also cut vertically — except for the adjacent edges (true for both horizontal and vertical, since it’s a sphere).
This remembers I have a challenge to figure out with some friends.
How to split a round cheese in in 5 perfectly without using any tools except the knife.
Assume you have the ability to cut in half perfectly always
Assume that if you can slice it in 10 equals pieces it is also a valid solution because you can just give two pieces for each
How to split a round cheese in in 5 perfectly without using any tools except the knife.
Assume you have the ability to cut in half perfectly always
Assume that if you can slice it in 10 equals pieces it is also a valid solution because you can just give two pieces for each
Okay, I'll bite: 2 and 5 are prime, this is the perfect fifth problem, only approximate solutions are possible. Make me wrong!
Cut into 8. Give 1 piece each.
For the remaining 3, repeat this method.
Let epsilon be a number as small as you like...
For the remaining 3, repeat this method.
Let epsilon be a number as small as you like...
The solution is to have a pet/toddler that makes even larger epsilons disappear.
Measure how many widths of the knife divide the circumference of the cheese. Divide by 5 and make a radial cut at each division.
The authors rightly point out how the pieces near the bottom get elongated in a vertical cut, but don't realize that the whole point of the horizontal cut is to cut those elongated pieces in half. It's not meant to be a cut halfway up the onion.
Once upon a time, my father, who could not cook, harshly criticised my onion chopping technique. This knocked my confidence in the kitchen quite a bit. I refused to learn the fancy techniques of the TV gameshow celebrity chef that my dad was enamoured with.
In my opinion, so long as you are chopping onions, all is well. Sure it could be dangerous, with fingers and egos at stake, but far worse is to not be chopping onions as that means ready meals, take out meals and having a poorer diet.
In my opinion, so long as you are chopping onions, all is well. Sure it could be dangerous, with fingers and egos at stake, but far worse is to not be chopping onions as that means ready meals, take out meals and having a poorer diet.
While math may offer "optimal" theoretical options, reality is messier. Likely the most efficient for humans and simpler technique to dice onions is the street food vendor way:
https://youtu.be/qDFc-5Zc3HU
https://youtu.be/LOqwl2KTzd4
https://youtu.be/qDFc-5Zc3HU
https://youtu.be/LOqwl2KTzd4
Lol love the extent of clarity of the experiment, findings and interface. I think that for practical purposes, it would be better if the std-dev of pieces with size above a certain threshold is observed. From my experience, pieces above a certain size cause inconsistency in cooked onions. But maybe it depends on the recipe.
This is exactly the kind of nerdy, hyper-specific deep dive that makes me love the internet
I figure since it's only an onion I'm glad that that mathematical optimization is not really necessary.
After all there are many more approaches that can be more mathematically rewarding, might as well enjoy it when you can ;)
After all there are many more approaches that can be more mathematically rewarding, might as well enjoy it when you can ;)
Posted less than a day ago (8 points, 2 comments) -
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44894302
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44894302
Sometimes I want this, other times I prefer random sizes.
For example, with tomato based sauces, I often have left overs. For those, sometimes it is not enough so I might add extra crushed tomato to the left overs.
Yet I won't cook that as long as the original dish. So I effectively end up with crushed tomatoes cooked to different amounts.
And you can taste it. It widens the flavour. Gives more depth. Since I noticed this, I often hold back a tablespoon or two of crushed tomatoes, giving long, short, and fresh tomato flavour. The fresh amount added is tiny, like adding spice!
For some dishes, I add fresh garlic but a tiny bit of garlic powder. Just a subtle hint of a slightly different garlic flavour.
Back to onions, different sized pieces cook more/less, and create more variance in flavour, as long as the cook isn't so long to completely cook them all.
I also like adding more than one type of onion to a dish.
Anyhow. Widen those flavours!
For example, with tomato based sauces, I often have left overs. For those, sometimes it is not enough so I might add extra crushed tomato to the left overs.
Yet I won't cook that as long as the original dish. So I effectively end up with crushed tomatoes cooked to different amounts.
And you can taste it. It widens the flavour. Gives more depth. Since I noticed this, I often hold back a tablespoon or two of crushed tomatoes, giving long, short, and fresh tomato flavour. The fresh amount added is tiny, like adding spice!
For some dishes, I add fresh garlic but a tiny bit of garlic powder. Just a subtle hint of a slightly different garlic flavour.
Back to onions, different sized pieces cook more/less, and create more variance in flavour, as long as the cook isn't so long to completely cook them all.
I also like adding more than one type of onion to a dish.
Anyhow. Widen those flavours!
I agree with the conclusion - it doesn't matter.
From their 2-d diagram, I'm having a hard time understanding what they mean by "vertical cuts" and "radial cuts"
Vertical cuts go up and down. Radial cuts go towards a point. But you make a valid point that this 2D diagram doesn't tell the full story, unless your onions are cylindrical, which they're not.
[deleted]
and then there is Marco Pierre White, How to finely chop onions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBj9H6z6Uxw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBj9H6z6Uxw
[deleted]
also should consider how easy it is to hole each shape steady as you cut it. how hard is it to actually implement the radial cutting procedure?
Throws it in the food processor.
Now you have to clean the food processor. Which is enough of a trouble to prevent me from using it very frequently.
Remove from the motor/base, separate parts, spray with water and toss in the dishwasher. And wouldn't you have to clean the cutting board and knife anyway?
The most important part: much less eye watering.
The most important part: much less eye watering.
> Remove from the motor/base, separate parts, spray with water
And then do in reverse once it's clean. And you're wondering why it seems like too much trouble...?
Plus you still need the knife and cutting board anyways to chop off the ends of the onion before peeling it. So it's not even instead of, it's in addition to.
Much less time to dice it yourself for one or two onions. Ten or twenty onions, OK it's food processor time.
And then do in reverse once it's clean. And you're wondering why it seems like too much trouble...?
Plus you still need the knife and cutting board anyways to chop off the ends of the onion before peeling it. So it's not even instead of, it's in addition to.
Much less time to dice it yourself for one or two onions. Ten or twenty onions, OK it's food processor time.
Reassembling a food processor takes mere seconds.
Overall, doing all this is much more convenient than manually chopping onions. It's not even close. This is one of the ideal use cases for a food processor.
Overall, doing all this is much more convenient than manually chopping onions. It's not even close. This is one of the ideal use cases for a food processor.
Maybe you're really slow at chopping onions? It takes like 15 seconds to dice an onion once it's peeled. Taking out, disassembling, rinsing, racking, unracking, reassembling, and putting away a food processor takes much much longer, any way you slice it. You're right, it's not even close -- manual dicing is always going to win for just a couple onions, unless you're already using the food processor for something else.
Maybe you're a masochist and like the sulfuric acid in your eyes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syn-Propanethial-S-oxide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syn-Propanethial-S-oxide
Let it spit in your eye, for it is doomed. Soon you will consume its essence and that is Good.
Or maybe it's not a big deal for just a couple of onions?
If it's really bothering you, make sure your knife is sharp enough. A dull knife makes dicing much slower and releases many, many more compounds.
If it's really bothering you, make sure your knife is sharp enough. A dull knife makes dicing much slower and releases many, many more compounds.
That works for the housing, but not for the blade which usually gets food jammed up in every little crevasse. You can't stick those in the dishwasher because it'll dull the cutting edges. Washing the knife and board is trivial by comparison.
But I don't really have trouble with my eyes with onions, that may be the deciding factor.
But I don't really have trouble with my eyes with onions, that may be the deciding factor.
> You can't stick those in the dishwasher
I stick my food processor blades in the dishwasher all the time; never hurt them any.
I stick my food processor blades in the dishwasher all the time; never hurt them any.
Well too be fair they usually come pretty dull from the factory already.
Of course you can stick the blade in the dishwasher. It works fine. What do think the dishwasher is doing, sandblasting?
Throw your knives in the dishwasher and they’ll dull right quick.
Food processor blades are usually stainless steel, which is a lot less sensitive to the dishwasher.
And food processor blades are driven much harder than hand knives, so they don't have to be as sharp.
Some substances in the dishwasher detergent are bad for steel, like sodium silicate.
Agreed. Food processors only make sense for larger amounts of processed foods. I'm glad to have one for those occasions though.
Nice if you want onion mush.
A few quick pulses doesn't make mush and is fine for a lot of applications. Otherwise, food processors have dicing kits https://i.imgur.com/cXbZ9aC.png
I enjoy the art of prep with my beautiful wa gyuto, I truly do. But if you put a 5 pound bag of large onion on front of me to dice, I will prefer the machine...
I enjoy the art of prep with my beautiful wa gyuto, I truly do. But if you put a 5 pound bag of large onion on front of me to dice, I will prefer the machine...
Yes, there is an inconvenience threshold that must be reached before bringing out the food processor. We also have a mandolin that can make cross-cuts for intermediate jobs: https://a.co/d/da8OxnE
That's a really cool mandoline, thanks for sharing. Not only is it safer but it's accessible for folks with motor issues. I'm still using a cut resistant glove and ignoring my plastic guard on a standard one.
The metric being optimized here is uniformity of cut.
footlong2(2)
I made my own version of this a while back, and it lets you create your own cutting methods, plot the statistical distribution, and share your ideas via permalink. It also lets you tweak onion parameters, such as number of layers and the layer thickness distribution curve).
Along the way I discovered two things:
1. I came up with my own method ("Josh’s method" in the app above) where the neither the longitudinal cuts nor the planar cuts are full depth, so the number of cuts at the narrower core is less than at the wider perimeter.
2. After all this hyper-optimization about size, it turns out what really matters when cooking is the THICKNESS, since ultimately determines the cooking rate. The only way to avoid thin outliers that burn long before the rest are cooked is to discard more of the tip of the onion, where the layers are the thinnest.
The 3D version of the simulator is still in progress--turns out 3D geometry is a lot harder than 2D. :)
Pull requests are welcome! https://github.com/joshwand/onion-simulator