Dimensions: 356 x 135 x 33mm (14.0 x 5.3 x 1.3in)
The Golden Rule is:
"Get A Ruler!"
Therefore:
Golden ratio: 1.6
Topre Realforce 86u (14.4 x 6.65): 2.2
Filco Tenkeyless (14.0 x 5.3): 2.6
Well, they are not that close. What about the Model M Space Saver?
EDIT: Model M Space Saver (15.3 x 7): 2.2
Not that close either. Well, I failed to find the secret of tenkeyless' beauty. Thanks anyway.
The Golden Rule is:
"Get A Ruler!"
Damn. Now I HAVE to buy a Realforce 23U numpad. At 93x152mm that's a ratio of 1.63, which is pretty darn close to the golden ratio of 1.62 (rounded to 2 decimal places.)
As a mathematician, I can assure you this is not aesthetically pleasing ratio at all, and all the hype is pseudoscientific at best.
How do mathematicians determine what's aesthetically pleasing?
Sorry, should have clarified further. There are researches done to show that people do not feel this ratio makes "better" rectangles than others.
From mathematics side, it's because many claims about the ratio is quite -- horrible. There are a LOT of numbers, so why (1+sqrt(5))/2? There are many other numbers that have as many interesting (and useless) property as this one. People point to natural patterns but lot of numbers occur in nature, and this is how golden ratio became famous. Also lot of numbers are really close to golden ratio and they could be used for so many arguments, but people don't care about them.
Indeed. Me, I prefer the scaling factor in the leading order term of the "sixth moment of the Riemann zeta function".
Did you know that after Health Care passes they are putting Obama's eyeball on the back of the 1 dollar bill?
Did you know that after Health Care passes they are putting Obama's eyeball on the back of the 1 dollar bill?Show Image(http://occultview.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/dollars-national-seal.jpg)
As a mathematician, I can assure you this is not aesthetically pleasing ratio at all, and all the hype is pseudoscientific at best. Just like how there is a conspiracy because Steinway, Yamaha, and all companies make pianos with 88 keys.
Sorry about that. But too many people asked me about how beautiful fractals are (no they are not) and how chaotic chaos is (no it isn't), and this is sort of natural response.
I'll settle for "graphical representations of fractals can be beautiful"! In themselves, they're just sets of numbers.
However, I've studied enough mathematics to find the sets themselves and their production aesthetically pleasing...
What makes us link numbers and beauty is our perception. Human perception has a lot of inherent postprocessing mechanisms from the lower levels to quite advanced stuff. And I do think the golden ratio works for our perception in a good many cases. I also agree that it's been hyped as well though.
The classical example is how the Fibonacci sequence approaches the golden ratio. The Fibonacci sequence is found a lot in nature (I just picked up a snail shell with a perfect Fibonacci sequence in my garden!), and a friend of mine who's a designer told me they usually use fibonacci ratios when determining how much larger a headline font should be than a bread text font for instance. Da Vinci's drawings of the human body show that he was very aware of the many golden ratios in a well-proportioned body.
If you insist that the human mind doesn't in fact perceive applications of the golden ratio as aesthetically pleasing in a great many cases, you're going to be quite lonely on your side of the line. And I think you should feel silly there as well.
I think you're full of it. The Fibonacci sequence showed up in my garden yesterday. And lots of mathematicians talk a lot about fractals. I've been to lectures about the Haussdorff dimensions of various mathematical constructs and physical phenomena for instance, and the word was used incessantly. Just because you're tired with them doesn't mean you get to pull the world of mathematics with you.
Thanks for correcting my misconception of Da Vinci's works. Do you have a link to that point, please?
Let me guess: Are you having problems with your English? You seem a bit unclear at points. That might be it.
I believe in a golden ratio, although this number is kind of arbitrary. But just like a good model of something more complex, it probably gets it right. The golden ratio depends on the amount of hydrogen and amount of other gasses in the cloud that collapsed to form our star and in particular our planet, and the distance between this planet and this star. This defines the gravity pull and climate. The gravity pull define the length/width proportions of the carbon based life forms, the climate defines other visual characteristics. The brains of these life forms, and the way they process visual input, is based on pattern repetition. See: visual illusions. These beings replicate based on regenerated DNA by mixing two DNA patterns, and thus the carriers will look for the best possible DNA partner for replication. There are many ways for such a life form to determine the best partner, and many are based on visual pattern recognition. The proportions must be right. Eyes too far apart? Strange short legs? Your subconscious brain has made its mind up, because it is trained by patterns, defined by gravity. You will look ugly to the natives on a planet with a different gravity pull. The golden ratio is nothing more than something which triggers such a subconscious reaction. Hayao Miyazaki, legendary Japanese story teller and movie maker, is a true master in understanding and triggering these subconscious reactions, on many levels (not only gravity). No, I won't get into what Fraud would say, that little bastard.