🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 26 Jun 1999 20:01:09 GMT, drifkind@acm.deleteme.org (David
Rifkind) wrote:
>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?)

Ohhh...never mind.

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