🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 26 Jun 1999 18:13:14 GMT, David C. Ullrich
<ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote:
>In article <zZIi7jAzW8c3EwDD@merlyn.demon.co.uk>,
>  Dr John Stockton <jrs@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> JRS:  In article <Im0c0MABmjc3Ew2K@merlyn.demon.co.uk> of Thu, 24 Jun
>> 1999 14:58:25 in news:comp.lang.pascal.delphi.misc, Dr John Stockton
>> <jrs@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >It will be interesting to see whether you've managed to avoid using a
>> >value for Pi, implicitly or explicitly, in the work.
>>
>[...]
>> I wonder whether there is a method of doing Buffon which does not use
>Pi
>> (implicitly or explicitly), does not have a subset-capability of
>> determining Pi, and does not, as Buffon did, use the Real World?
>
>       I have no idea what a "subset-capability" is, but modulo
>that of course there is. Set one endpoint P1 of the needle to a
>random point in a large square. Then set the other endpoint
>to another random point. Reject the second endpoint until you
>get one with say 0.5 < |P1 - P2| < 2. Then rescale it so
>|P1 - P2| = 1. There's your random needle, no trig and hence
>no Pi required.
>
>   ("rescale": say P2 := P1 + (P2 - P1)/|P2 - P1| . No
>angles, just a square root.)

Will that give an even distribution of angles?  It seems like it ought
to give some sort of bias towards rectangular angles.  (Old joke time:
Is there a STATISTICIAN in the house?)

-- 
"Generally speaking, things have gone about as far as they can possibly
go when things have got about as bad as they reasonably get."