 | | Re: Here's looking at Euclid
|
|
(...) Well... yes, I guess... assuming you knew X, though, you could easily calculate the diameter of the circle even without knowing the distance apart the two points were... Then the diameter of the circle would simply be: (...) (24 years ago, 2-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's looking at Euclid
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, John Gramley writes: **snip of some rather helpful stuff** How about this: Suppose the two points are vertices of an inscribed octagon whose sides are each of length X. Would that help? Dave! (24 years ago, 2-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's looking at Euclid
|
|
(...) The process depends on whether you want a numerical process or a construction process. I'm going to assume that you want a numerical process and that you know the coordinates of the three points. If you want a construction process to be able (...) (24 years ago, 2-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's looking at Euclid
|
|
Anyway, I'm assuming you know BOTH the distance between the two points (D), AND the distance along the circumference (L)... I just did it again to be totally geeky, without assuming knowledge of x1,y1 and x2,y2: In the equasion: (...) (24 years ago, 1-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's looking at Euclid
|
|
(...) note (...) Well, I'm assuming that we know the coordinates of the two points-- in which case, you'll get slightly different results on the baseball and the basketball... Using the 1 inch string on the basketball will create two points which (...) (24 years ago, 1-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
