@Zebasiz  
If I was paid to draw 800 dots, I would draw 800 dots.

@Prof.NightJack  
I know, But keeping the mindset of in-universe reasons was funner~

@Zebasiz  
They where talking about the show’s staff, not in universe…

@Eeveeinheat  
They’re working with film-reel levels of technology. There was no copy-paste functions aside from ACTUALLY cutting out some wings from somewhere else and pasting them in~

@Background Pony #E047  
They didn’t have to. There is something called copy and past.

Maybe they didn’t want to draw 800 fucking wings, is that so wrong?!

If the number of wings was “at least 800 wingpower”, the smallest triangle to match that criterion would be 820, which is trinum(40) or 800 < (40)(41)/2.

@WaffleBandito  
I was doing it because I couldn’t stand that the person who made this post in the first place got 585, which is wrong any way you do it, not because I was trying to find logic or science in the show. … And I just look down in the comments and someone beat me too it, OFC.

@Eeveeinheat  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ugebzq3juE

@Eeveeinheat  
No!!!! I meant for it to be n+1! No!!! Anyone here who has admin power, could you maybe fix that for me please? It’s the two parts at the bottom where I messed up and said ((n(n-1))/2)-8 and ((34(34-1))/2)-8 instead of  
((n(n+1))/2)-8 and ((34(34+1))/2)-8

I would use (n(n+1))/2 to solve this, and this would work if the rows each have one less than the previous, but since the bottom row has 34, yet there are 33 rows in all, that means someone fudged up when making this in the first place. Let’s see where the mess up is-
 
Row-Number in row  
1 - 34  
2 - 33  
3 - 32  
4 - 31  
5 - 30  
6 - 29  
7 - 28  
8 - 27  
9 - 26  
10 - 25  
11 - 24  
12 - 23  
13 - 22  
14 - 21  
15 - 20  
16 - 19  
17 - 18  
18 - 17  
19 - 16  
20 - 15  
21 - 14  
22 - 13  
23 - 12  
24 - 11  
25 - 10  
26 - 9  
Extra row missing number 8 <  
27 - 7  
28 - 6  
29 - 5  
30 - 4  
31 - 3  
32 - 2  
33 - 1
 
In conclusion we find the real row 27 to be skipped entirely. Now the math problem is simple.  
((n(n-1))/2)-8  
((34(34-1))/2)-8  
((34*35)/2)-8  
(1190/2)-8  
595-8  
587
 
The answer is 587 wings. Sigh… I spent way too much time with this…

@Zebasiz  
i am aware

@mathprofbrony  
I was originally SenorDee on AOL because SenorDiablo was taken. When I became an urban mystic I changed the Senor part to Urban Mystic and kept Dee because I’d been using that name for so long.

@Prof.NightJack  
I LOVE that show~
 
@filflat  
Spoilsport. =P
 
Just incase it wasn’t clear, I was being silly in previous posts. Sometimes it’s just fun to place more significance on something that it would ever truly need.

@UrbanMysticDee
 
You know there’s a number wizards have to avoid. Maybe a wizard made the slide.
 
 
Also, by any chance, is your name a reference to mystic John Dee?

@Zebasiz  
A wish intro song once said, repeat to yourself, “It’s just a show  
I should really just relax”.

@Zebasiz  
no

@filflat  
Maybe YOU’RE just not taking it seriously enough! This is Extremely important!
 
…Somehow.
 
…Maybe.
 
I think?
 
Eh.

@Background Pony #586F  
You’re taking it way too seriously.

@filflat  
More to the point, when it comes to presentations like this, the numbering system on the slides/filmstrip/whatever goes roughly: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, several, a lot, a whole lot, more than you can count without making a mistake somewhere. The fact that there’s 587 wings in this image doesn’t mean there’s 587 pegasi or 587 wings or 587 wingpower represented; it means there’s a whole heck of a lot of pegasi/wings/wingpower being represented. (Now, if there were a legend on this image saying “1 wing = 1 wingpower”, OP might have a semblance of a case.)
 
And remember, even “can hardly fly” Fluttershy managed at least 2.5 wingpower, so it’s not like this image is claiming this is exactly the number of pegasi or wings you’ll need to reach 800 wingpower.
 
(As an aside, was anyone else hoping Derpy would have her wingpower measured as 9.6?)

Get the stick out of your ass, it’s a cartoon.

@mathprofbrony  
I think the real conspiracy is why did they skip 8?

There only place where there is a wing more than being 1 plus the row below is going from 7 to 9. So add 8, and you can get the sum from 1 to the last row, 34.
 
There is a formula for the sum from 1 to n: (n^{2 + n)/2. These are called the triangular numbers, much as the square numbers n}2 are the numbers of things arranged in complete squares.
 
A 34-row triangle thus has (34^2 + 34)/2 = 595 wings. If you are missing 8, then there are 587.