Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site mtgzz.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!columbia!topaz!packard!edsel!bentley!ihnp1!ihnp4!drutx!mtuxo!mtgzz!leeper
From: leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Criticizing the critics - out of the closet...
Message-ID: <764@mtgzz.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 19-May-85 13:13:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: mtgzz.764
Posted: Sun May 19 13:13:13 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 21-May-85 04:45:29 EDT
References: <1943@topaz.ARPA> <1145@hound.UUCP> <661@udenva.UUCP> <1089@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Middletown NJ
Lines: 18


>>  Also, the obelisk-shaped thingies were not in any way of 1X4X9
>> proportion, and why was that such a big deal?  Etc., etc., etc.
>
>  ...gosh...I thought they were...um, go to a math book, look up 
>the words "golden rectangle" in the index, then get back to us...

What the heck are you talking about?  The book 2001 and the film 2010
both say the slab is a 1x4x9 rectangular prism.  Neither film shows the
slab this way, making it look more like an ebony door (without handle).
This has nothing whatsoever to do with a Golden Rectangle.  That is a
two dimensonal rectangle whose length is phi times its width.  phi is 
(1+sqroot(5))/2.  Nobody has mentioned this rectangle in relation to
Clarke till now.  What does a Golden rectangle have to do with anything
in this discussion?

				Mark Leeper
				...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper