Yeah. Here's what I came up with: Pip Width Height Giant-W Giant-H 0 0.34375 0.625 2.75 5 1 0.5625 1 4.5 8 2 0.78125 1.375 6.25 11 3 1 1.75 8 14 4 1.21875 2.125 9.75 17 5 1.4375 2.5 11.5 20 6 1.65625 2.875 13.25 23 7 1.875 3.25 15 26 8 2.09375 3.625 16.75 29 9 2.3125 4 18.5 32 I hope this comes through with some semblance of structure... On Wednesday, January 10, 2007, at 03:04PM, <kerry_and_ryan@xxxxxxx> wrote: > -------------- Original message ---------------------- >From: "Don Sheldon" <don.sheldon@xxxxxxxxx> >> Each step is 3/8ths of an inch taller and approximately 7/32nds wider >> (actually 3/14ths, but good luck finding that on your ruler), so a six >> pip would be 2 1/8" tall and 1 21/32" wide. Approximately. (Actually >> 1 9/14") > >3/14??? Let's try that again? > >Pips / Width / Height >1 / 18/32 / 32/32 >2 / 25/32 / 44/32 >3 / 32/32 / 56/32 > >Therefore... >4 / 39/32 / 68/32 >5 / 46/32 / 80/32 >6 / 53/32 / 92/32 which is indeed 1 21/32 wide, but I'd say 2 7/8 tall. > >In general... >x / (7x+11)/32 / (12x+20)/32 > >From: Christopher Hickman <tophu@xxxxxxx> >> > And I think that IS linear growth, pretty much by definition. >> >> Yeah. You're right. I realize now what I thought I meant: the angles are not >> constant. As the pyramids get bigger, the get more squat (that is, the linear >> growth of the base width is a larger ratio to the linear growth of the height). >> So, if you were to take a hypothetical 10 pointer and cut of the top 1 inch of >> the tip, it would NOT be a 1 pointer, because it would be waaaay too wide. > >Using the linear progression we've discovered, a -11/7 pip pyramid would have zero width and a height of 8/224 of an inch (0.03(571428)"). :-) > >Ryan >_______________________________________________ >Icehouse mailing list >Icehouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/icehouse > >