Subject:
|
Re: Here's looking at Euclid
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 Aug 2000 17:54:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
278 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Dave Schuler writes:
> > 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!
>
> 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:
> sqrt((((2X)/sqrt(2))+X)^2+X^2)
>
> But if you don't know how long X is, no help (sorry)
I have the coordinates of the points, so am I correct in thinking I can
calculate X?
In any case, thanks to everyone for the help; I have what I need to figure
it out!
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Here's looking at Euclid
|
| (...) Nope... again, not unless you know something else (like how many verticies there are in between the two points). You could probably come up with a good guestimate, though, since there would only be 4 possible values for X, all of which you (...) (24 years ago, 2-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
