From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,18069d15345a10c8 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-14 18:15:53 PST Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!darwin.sura.net!news.sesqui.net!uuneo.neosoft.com!Starbase.NeoSoft.COM!not-for-mail From: dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Modulus and Remainder operations (Was Re: Help with a bit of C code) Date: 14 Oct 1994 17:56:56 -0500 Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services +1 713 684 5969 Message-ID: <37n2bo$boo@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> References: <37er8t$oh0@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> <37k951$153e@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: starbase.neosoft.com Date: 1994-10-14T17:56:56-05:00 List-Id: In article , Henry G. Baker wrote: > >I agree that it is a step forward, in much the same vein that a square >wheel is an improvement on a triangular one. Still makes for one heck >of a bumpy ride, though. :-) > Sir, I respectfully disagree. In my seminal work, "Kittens: Cats of the Future?", I mathematically prove the converse of your statement, that Triangular wheels are an improvement over square ones. I won't go into all the mathematical mumbo-jumbo, but the central theme, stressed repeatedly in the paper, focuses on the "Bump Factor". While this formula still requires more study (a topic of my doctoral research at Slimy Stone on the Green River University of Improbable Studies, Hatfordhanoverschestershire, West Sufferfolk, England), let me present a rough sketch: +---+ /\ | | / \ +---+ Square = 4 sides /____\ Triangle = 3 sides Let us take into consideration the consumer-oriented view, that each individual bump contributes to the overall discomfort, we will use the variable Bd (Bumpiness discomfort). When we permit squares and triangles of equal sides (s), we find that the mathematical derivations (see seminal work mentioned above) simplifies to: Bd = n * s. Thus, one can see that, for a square wheel, Bd(square)= 4s. While for a triangular wheel, Bd(triangle)= 3s. Thus, triangular wheels are less bumpy than square wheels. My research is now extending this theory to two-sided and one-sided wheels. While the one-sided wheels are somewhat problematic, given the physical challenge of milling a wheel that is a point, the two-sided wheel variation is progressing nicely. At this point, the current limitation we seem to have is getting the vehicle to propel itself properly. However, we're currently modifying a Yugo to hold a '78 Trans-Am 6.6 Litre engine. My engineering assistant assures me this will work spectacularly. I will publish a report next year, "Puppies: Dogs of the Future?" which will bring to completion this theory. I look forward to a well-received publication, and invite you to be a distinguished reviewer. I apologize for moving off-topic, but such blasphemous statements simply cannot go unanswered. -- Proud (and vocal) member of Team Ada! (and Team OS/2) ||This is not your Ada -- Very Cool. Doesn't Suck. || father's Ada For all sorts of interesting Ada tidbits, run the command: ||________________ "finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.) ObNitPick: Spelling Ada as ADA is like spelling C++ as CPLUSPLUS. :-)