This is the Message Centre for chaiwallah
True Researcher
Gnomon - time to move on Started conversation May 20, 2003
I find your use of the square root in your derivation of 42 inelegant. Might I suggest (2+1)*(9/9)*14 instead?
True Researcher
chaiwallah Posted May 20, 2003
Revered and respected Gnomon, upon whose wise head may the blessings of Allah never cease to shower in golden cascades, I alas, am a mere humble, abjectly grovelling craftsman and chaiwallah, not a mathematician, so I don't even understand the elegant formula you so kindly offered. My friend Recumbentman provided me with the present severely square and deeply rooted derivation. But if you can explain to me how yours works to produce the requisite 42, I shall be delighted to substitute it for the present inept sprawl.
I remain,
Sir,
Yr. Excellency's Mft h'mbl, obl'gd and ob't ferv't,
Chaiwallah
True Researcher
Gnomon - time to move on Posted May 20, 2003
It's quite simple.
(2+1) is 3
(9/9) is 1
so what I have suggested is 3 times 1 times 14 which if I am not mistaken is 42.
True Researcher
chaiwallah Posted May 20, 2003
Aaaaaaaaaah. Well, you see. I am incredibly thick when it comes to maths, and it didn't occur to me that your asterisk thingies were supposed to be multiplication signs . I"d have got there quicker had you used x's. Sorry.
True Researcher
Gnomon - time to move on Posted May 21, 2003
Sorry! That's an old programmer habit of mine, using stars instead of x signs. Because I'm an old programmer.
True Researcher
chaiwallah Posted May 21, 2003
Well, thank you anyway, dear old programmer. Speaking as a dense and boring old pedant, you won't mind if I do the edit on my page using x's instead of *'s.
Key: Complain about this post
True Researcher
More Conversations for chaiwallah
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."