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: 1994-10-16 01:22:00 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!news.kei.com!yeshua.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!csusac!csus.edu!netcom.com!hbaker From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry G. Baker) Subject: Re: Modulus and Remainder operations (Was Re: Help with a bit of C code) Message-ID: Organization: nil References: <37k951$153e@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> <37n2bo$boo@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 01:25:46 GMT Date: 1994-10-16T01:25:46+00:00 List-Id: In article <37n2bo$boo@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) writes: >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. You might consider studying wheels with a _negative_ number of sides -- presumably you drive around _inside_ the wheel. Also non-integral numbers of sides -- e.g., rational, irrational & transcendental wheels. ----- I don't know if you've seen the bicycle chainwheels which are elliptical instead of round. They seem to transmit power from the leg in a slightly more uniform manner, and should be slightly more efficient. It drives the derailleur a bit crazy, though. Henry Baker Read ftp.netcom.com:/pub/hbaker/README for info on ftp-able papers.