Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

Re: [Icehouse] Pointless Pedantic Pursuit of Proper Pyramid Proportions

  • From"Don Sheldon" <don.sheldon@xxxxxxxxx>
  • DateMon, 5 Mar 2007 13:13:52 -0500
On 3/5/07, Robert Bryan <rbryan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This post continues the ultimately pointless discussion of larger size
pyramid dimensions which I somewhat knowingly set off in my previous
post.  To those who find such discussions annoying, I offer my apologies
and encourage you to skip the rest of it.  To those who find them
interesting, but disagree with me, please accept my forthcoming outrage
in the good humor with which it is intended. :)

I'm going to keep this paragraph here as a header and say "ditto."

> When you round to the nearest 32nd (which is part of the formula),
they're > dead on.

When you round they're dead on?  I find this both unsurprising and
unsatisfying.  My proposed formula
requires no rounding whatsoever; and produces exactly the correct sizes
for the existing pieces.

I will counter with an interesting (to me) fact that such rounding is
often used in descriptions of standards.  International sized paper
(A4, A3, etc.) is defined as having edges with a ratio of 1:sqrt(2)
and areas that are 1/(2^n) square meters.  But, officially, these
measurements are always rounded to the nearest millimeter.

So A0 (with an area of 1 square meter) IS NOT the wacky transcendental
numbers that you might calculate, it is, in fact 1189mm x 841mm
/exactly/, no more, no less.

Point being, there is precedent for these kinds of formulae.


> But that breaks down severely at higher pips and deforms your pyramids
> away from the beauty of the 4:7 ratio.

Severely? It converges on 7:12, which is roughly 2% different from 4:7.
So it would be hard to say 4:7 was aesthetically pleasing but something
between that and 7:12 was not.  For the same reason, you can easily be
forgiven for being lured into the heresy that it's all about the 4:7
ratio.  The 1 and 2 pointers are not 4:7, though they easily could be
were that the mystically desirable ratio. Clearly, it is all about the
steady convergence from 11:20 to 7:12.

It's true.  There isn't a huge difference.  Certainly not enough to
warrant a serious conversation of this magnitude.  Lucky for us we're
not serious.

And ewww, steady variation of aspect ratios?!  How appalling!

- |) () /\/