If you want to cut a cone like that then you can use calculus to get the volumes of the slices, but it's easier to cut from point to base like an orange and calculate the volumes of the more triangular slices.

I described set theory vaguely because "thing" is the most precise I can be without cutting out things that could be in sets. You could be in a set with nothing else. You could be in a set alongside the concept of nothing else. You could be in a set alongside a set that contains nothing. All 3 of these would be different sets that could coexist. I hope you can see why I thought "things" was the best way to describe them.

I'll be honest, I described topology horribly and had to that on my own. It doesn't even distinguish shapes without cuts and frankly I've been on reddit too long so I'm cutting my losses and cutting it out.

Anyways, statistics. As far as the math goes it really is just bell curves for probabilities and lines of best fit to judge trends with. The only exception is a table you need to look up things in. Anyways I have a mini rant I've been holding in. It uses the exact same equations with different coats of paint TOO MANY TIMES. It was fun reusing my spreadsheet calculator the first time but then it kept HAPPENING. Do it to find a specific probability. Use something "different" to find a minimum probability. Something "different" for a maximum. "This isn't the same thing it has everything flipped negative, including the other side of the equation." Mini rant over.

Anyways you're smart. You probably see why I described them that way (except topology shiver). If you want to see a fun infinite loop paradox in set theory, it's called Russell's Paradox. I have responsibilities I've been procrastinating so I wish you some brain steak you can enjoy digesting.