3 ms·
> But what do you end up with folding the US Letter? Let’s see: > 216 mm x 279 mm ratio: 1.291 > 139 mm x 216 mm ratio: 1.554 <- What? > 108 mm x 139 mm rati
by monochromatic 12y ago
> But what do you end up with folding the US Letter? Let’s see:
> 216 mm x 279 mm ratio: 1.291
> 139 mm x 216 mm ratio: 1.554 <- What?
> 108 mm x 139 mm ratio: 1.287 <- Ah..
> 69 mm x 108 mm ratio: 1.565 <- HUH!?
> 54 mm x 69 mm ratio: 1.278
> 34 mm x 54 mm ratio: 1.588
> 27 mm x 34 mm ratio: 1.259 <- Oh god...
These ratios, in fact, just go back and forth between two values (because when you cut a piece of paper into fourths, it has the same aspect ratio as the original). The other differences are just rounding errors.
He notes rounding errors earlier in the post, so I'm not sure why they get called out in this example with "HUH!?" and the other comments.
- glitch 12y agoAgreed. The article writer really failed in that section. It's just rounding error. Based on his written reactions there, I honestly don't think he realized it was oscillating at the time he wrote that part. It seems like he just didn't want to bother to correct himself after the fact or is just intentionally being stupid.
- GhotiFish 12y agofull disclosure. I actually didn't notice the oscillations myself. However, I was just very absentmindedly skimming, It's a little more unbelievable for the author, the one doing the calculations, to miss this.