Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

Re: [Icehouse] Re: Isosceles triangle angle

  • From"Don Sheldon" <don.sheldon@xxxxxxxxx>
  • DateTue, 6 Mar 2007 12:21:08 -0500
On 3/6/07, Robert Bryan <rbryan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

It's true that my position comes down to "that's how I would have done
it if it were me."  I can't see anyone, not even a zany NASA
programmer turned game designer, choosing 0.21875 as the size
increment for the new playing pieces he's designed.

Here's how I imagine it going, and I realize that I'm projecting a lot
of my thoughts onto Andy, but I don't know him, so that's what I'm
gonna do. ;)

A one inch base, that sounds good.
Twice as tall makes it too pointy.
One and half times as tall is still too short.
I'll split the difference and go with one and three quarters.
And lo, it was Large.  And it was good.
I'll make another one.  It'll be as tall as the first one was wide.
That would make the base (if I'm keeping the same ratio) about
(mathcrunchcrunchmath) 9/16ths.
And lo, it was Small.  And it was good.
Hmm, I need something in between.
He'll be the average.
And lo, it was Medium.  And it was good.

If Andy is God and I'm writing The Bible, that was Genesis.

- |) () /\/
 And yeah, I could be wrong.  I don't think I am, but I recognize it
as a possibility.