On Wednesday, January 10, 2007, at 02:36PM, "Christopher Hickman" <tophu@xxxxxxx> wrote: >On Wednesday, January 10, 2007, at 02:05PM, "Don Sheldon" <don.sheldon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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. Ok, so this is just completely wrong. The linear progression is good for both the dimensions and the angles. Here's a pdf that has an illustration of a (theoretical) ten pyramid nest, from a zero pip to a nine. Just view it at 100% and there's your size comparison. So I still think a "jumbo" set of 4-6 pointers would be sweet. http://homepage.mac.com/tophu/Pyramids0-9.pdf