On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:13:52 -0500, "Don Sheldon" wrote: > 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." Absolutely. And what's most fun about a discussion like this is that we're already off the deep end from the beginning, so we never have to worry about stretching the topic past the point of absurdity. It was all absurd to begin with! > > were that the mystically desirable ratio. Clearly, it is all about the > > steady convergence from 11:20 to 7:12. What's surprising in the current discussion is that people have only been looking to the three published sizes here for canonical information: http://www.wunderland.com/icehouse/MakingIcehouse.html But Andy has already "published" instructions on making a size-0 pyramid. How do the two proposals for equations stack up against that? [Of course, answering that question is a bit tricky as the thickness of a stackable size-1 pyramid is involved in the current construction of a size-0. And we don't yet have any published canonical data on pyramid wall thickness---nor even interior widths and heights. Is the wall thickness defined to be uniform? Or does it vary from bottom to top to account for a change in the aspect ratio from one height to the next? There lie some questions to extend the pyramid-sizing debate into the future for a while...] -Carl
Attachment:
pgpPU7SgfcNwB.pgp
Description: PGP signature