Off topic (in case we weren't already) does just everybody but me have a mail program that puts in that "On X/X/X So-and-so wrote:" automagically? It's a nice quoting style, but a pain to do by hand. Anyway... At some point, David wrote: >> SO, after using this to calculate Base for a given pip count X: >> Base = (Base of X-1) + 0.21875 >> Height = 1.75 * Base And at some other point, Don replied: >(*cought*1.75, a.k.a. 7/4*cough*) >-- >- |) () /\/ > I feel partially vindicated, I think, I didn't take the time to follow > all your math yet His math agrees with your math because he bases his calculation, like you base your calculation, on the 3-pointer only. Nobody can reasonably question the contention that 3 pointers have a 4:7 base to height ratio; or that 3 pointers are 1" X 1 3/4" ; or that the angles at the top are what David calculated. It's all the same relation however you express it, and the 3 pointers follow it. But the smaller pieces do not. David appears unaware of this. Don argues that the smaller pieces dimensions are wrong, or rounded off, but I must reject this. What little point there is in having a discussion so pedantic as this is obviously obliterated if we allow such imprecision.