On 3/4/07, Ryan McGuire <kerry_and_ryan@xxxxxxx> wrote:
You were trying to create a function that allowed the pieces to retain basically the same proportions in the bigger sizes, even if that meant having to round the results. I thought you had done the math wrong and had to do the rounding as a fudge to match the existing dimension. I stand corrected, or at least enlightened.
I wouldn't say the math is "wrong." I think that the math is perfect and that reality had to be rounded (because, let's face it, manufacturers won't accept 4/7ths of an inch as a dimension in your build process, let alone a pieceniker with a ruler).
You like the 4:7 (~.5714) ratio, huh? My "exact" formulae would approach a 7:12 (~.5833) ratio. You can have yours, I'll have mine.
While it is true that your formulae do approach 7:12, they never actually make it there and every pyramid between here and infinity is a slightly different shape. May way, every pyramid has the same proportions within a tolerance of plus or minus about one and a half hundredths of an inch. (For those watching at home, if you take an extra heavy duty trashbag and double it over (so you have four layers of plastic), it's about that thickness.) -- - |) () /\/ And I'm guessing that you're as devoted to your way as I am to mine, and that there's no chance of either of us convincing the other. I'm also pretty sure that, by this point, no one else really cares so, um, well. There you go. I concur that we'll just have to agree to disagree.