Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

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

  • FromCarl Worth <cworth@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • DateMon, 05 Mar 2007 11:52:14 -0800
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


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...]


Attachment: pgpPU7SgfcNwB.pgp
Description: PGP signature