Talk:Zero-pip pyramids

Cerulean, I love you and everything you stand for. - misuba 21:04, 10 Feb 2006 (GMT)

LOL, I was calling them 0.5 pip pyramids in my spreadsheet. 0-pip makes sense, it just seems wrong, to me.  ;) -JEEP 06:53, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Aspect ratio

I'm sure that Andy noted on the lists that the aspect ratio was intended to be constant, but that the dimensions are rounded to the nearest 1/32 inch. I'll see if I can dig it up.— Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 21:14, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

"Of course, it is obvious that possibility (2),(C) is the correct choice. Not only do the pyramid Base Size and Face Height vary with a neat equation: BS = 4 / 7 FH = (4 + (2 ^ (PointValue - 1)) / 8, but the pyramids are similar too."[1]

There we go. They do not get squatter, it's a misunderstanding of trying to reverse engineer the formula from 3 data points.— Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 21:30, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Mathematical corrections

The formula Andy quoted from that long-ago discussion does not match the production sizes. I added some discussion of that fact. I also corrected the formula for the face height vs. the mid height for the variable aspect ratio linear progression. H'/H is not constant unless the aspect ratio is constant. Perhaps we should promote a constant aspect ratio linear progression as our primary ("best") extrapolation, with a note that the production values are rounded. Walleye 12:38, 29 March 2008 (EDT)