You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Hi
If MARGIN+PICNUM*(MARGIN+WIDTH)+MARGIN+WIDTH=PICW/2
then WIDTH= ?
Thanks
MARGIN+PICNUM*(MARGIN+WIDTH)+MARGIN+WIDTH=PICW/2
Put the additional MARGIN+WIDTH inside the brackets by factorising:
MARGIN+(PICNUM+1)*(MARGIN+WIDTH)=PICW/2
Put the MARGIN on the right-hand side:
(PICNUM+1)*(MARGIN+WIDTH)=PICW/2-MARGIN
Divide by (PICNUM+1):
MARGIN+WIDTH=(PICW/2-MARGIN)/(PICNUM+1)
Take away MARGIN:
WIDTH=[(PICW/2-MARGIN)/(PICNUM+1)]-MARGIN
Why did the vector cross the road?
It wanted to be normal.
Offline
Why not
w=(pw/2-m)/(pn+1)-m
IPBLE: Increasing Performance By Lowering Expectations.
Offline
MARGIN+PICNUM*(MARGIN+WIDTH)+MARGIN+WIDTH=PICW/2
Let m MARGIN p PICNUM x WIDTH q PICW
Then
m+p*(m+x)+m+x=q/2
px+x=q/2 -m -pm -m
x ( p+1 )=q/2-2m-pm
x= (q-4m-2pm)/2*(p+1)
x= (q-2m*(2+p)) / (2*( p+1 ))
WIDTH=( PICW-2MARGIN*(2+PICNUM))/(2*( PICNUM+1))
Last edited by seerj (2005-12-29 03:06:42)
Offline
I have tried these equations in a computer program and I don't think they're yielding the correct answers.
If you take
MARGIN+PICNUM*(MARGIN+WIDTH)+MARGIN+WIDTH=PICW/2
and then use say MARGIN=10,PICNUM=7,WIDTH=10 and use these numbers to derive PICW
and then use one of the WIDTH solution equations with these numbers inserted they don't balance up ( by my reckoning!) Am I at fault or are these solutions ( which all yield the same answers) missing something ? Is it maybe a question of operator precedence?
IPBLE: Increasing Performance By Lowering Expectations.
Offline
My mistake. It works perfectly. Many thanks for al your help. I've learnt a lot from you all.
You'll learn a lot from us.
IPBLE: Increasing Performance By Lowering Expectations.
Offline
Pages: 1