[Icehouse] Re: Isosceles triangle angle

[Robert Bryan]

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.