Something Random
I just made an astonishing discovery and I need to share it with everyone. Here it is:
That's accurate to 0.2%! Who the heck knew?
In other news, next week's weather looks like it demands some weak layer inspection far afield in the alpine. Who wants to stomp that pesky snowpack on some perilously steep slopes with me?
That's accurate to 0.2%! Who the heck knew?
In other news, next week's weather looks like it demands some weak layer inspection far afield in the alpine. Who wants to stomp that pesky snowpack on some perilously steep slopes with me?
posted by SkiSickness at 3:52 PM
4 Comments:
Turns out that if you hunt a little more,
\int_{178}^{179} exp(-t) dt is ever so slightly better. (3,4)'s still cooler.
Hunting out to 5000 yielded no further results except to heat my office with the CPU a little more. To look further would be madness better expended skiing (ok, well, (350,351) is a nice pair for 2 \pi). Numerology is bad for the soul!
Stay safe out there - Wednesday might kick ass if the forecast holds.
(139,140) is a good pair for e itself. Right... back to work.
This math stuff is making my head hurt. More importantly, Sky, what did Sunday’s research reveal?
Dave
A very deep snowpack, lots of natural crowns on aspect other than ours, a few huge sun-triggered avys across the valley during the day, some downright scary terrain traps and exposures, and character-building wallowing that attenuated our ascent rate enough to stop us 1/3 of the way up our objective.
Good times.
Want to ski tomorrow?
me+8(40%CnH2n+1OH)=hairypi
at least that is the ideal outcome
stay safe out there
Post a Comment
<< Home