Mine was clumsy, 20%, and 2x14 < 30, so 20+%
Mine was clumsy, 20%, and 2x14 < 30, so 20+%
(continued)
(continued)
(continued)
(continued)
(continued)
(continued)
Take 2 lines (circles) on an ellipsoid, parallel to the plane formed by 2 axes (call them x and y), and add one line (a circle) through the y-z-plane.
Need to play w/the dimensions, but yeah, we could get a square. In fact, 2 squares
Take 2 lines (circles) on an ellipsoid, parallel to the plane formed by 2 axes (call them x and y), and add one line (a circle) through the y-z-plane.
Need to play w/the dimensions, but yeah, we could get a square. In fact, 2 squares
Ratio 2:1, 49,98 fails, 48,96 works. (48,96) = 48
Ratio 3:1, greatest possible is 33, skip
Ratio 3:2, greatest possible is 33...
Wait, the limiting factor is 100/(max of the 2), so can't do better than 2:1.
Answer is 48.
Ratio 2:1, 49,98 fails, 48,96 works. (48,96) = 48
Ratio 3:1, greatest possible is 33, skip
Ratio 3:2, greatest possible is 33...
Wait, the limiting factor is 100/(max of the 2), so can't do better than 2:1.
Answer is 48.
(or was it multiplying? I do that backwards too. Errors happen later, w/less effect)
(or was it multiplying? I do that backwards too. Errors happen later, w/less effect)
I do. I know the right way. And the wrong way. And my way. And other ways
I have choices. Which is good. And ties their tongues.
I do. I know the right way. And the wrong way. And my way. And other ways
I have choices. Which is good. And ties their tongues.
So if we are going for “constant distance“ my graph probably won’t work. But if we care about “never intersect“ – bingo!
So if we are going for “constant distance“ my graph probably won’t work. But if we care about “never intersect“ – bingo!