[ExI] isaac's number

[spike]

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike
Subject: Re: [ExI] isaac's number

 

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 6:00 AM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org <mailto:extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> >
Subject: Re: [ExI] isaac's number

 

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 2:10 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:

 

>>>...Woolhouse's 11/144 = .076388889, equal to my Monte Carlo solution to about a part per million.

​ ​

>>>…Correction, my sim gives .0763889013, but I found a much faster way to do the calc by generating only three points and calculating an area.

 

​

>>…That my friend is impressive!  John Clark 

 

 

>…John as much as I would like to soak up that sentiment, I can’t claim credit.  The really impressive feat was the closed form solution found by Woolhouse.  spike

 

 

 

OK, news from the geek-with-too-much-time-on-his-hands department: I took my Monte Carlo sim for the triangles and generalized it to 3 dimensions.

 

Original question:  in a unit square with three random points, what is the average area of the triangle?

 

New question: in a unit cube with four random points, what is the volume of the tetrahedron?

 

I studied that Woolhouse page BillK found, struggled with the integrals for a while and finally had to admit that I suck.  I won’t be channeling The Donald any time soon.  But I can write Monte Carlo sims of anything that moves and plenty of things that do not, so I did.  I just finished it and haven’t even run it yet.  Before I pull the trigger, I want to allow us to make guesses on what the answer will be.

 

Last time, my mathematical intuition fell flat, but I want to try again.  For reasons I will not explain, I now think this answer will come out somewhere around 0.00849.

 

If you want to enter a guess, do so, or if you want to be less committed, just say higher or lower than my 0.00849.  The grand prize will be my undying respect for all eternity, or until I forget, whichever comes first.  

 

If anyone here generalizes the Woolhouse integrals, I will totally bow down before you and declare my grubby self unworthy to gaze upon your brilliance.  I will be seriously impressed as all hell and say good things about you.

 

Alternative: BillK might find us another miracle page somewhere that answers the new question.

 

Guesses?  Higher or lower than 0.00849?

 

spike

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20170802/2dcef06d/attachment.html>