Re: Modulus and Remainder operations (Was Re: Help with a bit of C code)

[hbaker@netcom.com (Henry G. Baker)]

In article <37n2bo$boo@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) writes:
>In article <hbakerCxo659.H6w@netcom.com>,
>Henry G. Baker <hbaker@netcom.com> 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.