pull down to refresh

For
For
Diameter is twice that, so
No?
106 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scroogey 14 Oct
That would give diameters
For the sequence of divisors there are multiple candidates
reply
This is a great website. Didn't know about it. Made me check out the infamous https://oeis.org/A000127 sequence, for which there seem to be many more cases showing this unexpected change from 32 to 31.
reply
Aren't you using the same symbol to denote the different radii of (as in the drawing) and (as in the right-hand side of the formula below)? And same comment for the subsequent equation?
For
For
I used a different approach to solve this problem (I'll post it as a solution with the next iteration), but that one gives me for .
reply
For
(the top-left corner of the triangle is supposed to be the center of )
The hypotenuse is 1 + , where denotes the radius of .
The horizontal leg is simply 1 (this is true for all ).
The vertical leg is minus the sum of all diameters and minus of .
So, Pythagoras gives of .
reply
Ok got it. This seems correct. I'll have to figure out why my approach is giving a different result. I likely must have applied it incorrectly. Please don't spend more time on this, I'm assuming the error must be on my side at this point.
reply
You're right, I incorrectly applied Descartes. 1/12 is correct. My bad...
reply
Oh, neat, I didn't know about Descartes' theorem!
So you're calculating
where curvature is (the inverse of the radius).
If I pick , and to calculate
Now we can simply repeat with , and to calculate
So radius or diameter
reply
And I guess a direct formula for circle could be
reply
Yes, exactly.
a fractal generated by starting with a triple of circles, each tangent to the other two, and successively filling in more circles, each tangent to another three.
reply
I'll check my notes tomorrow.
reply