Apart from the first formula, the units used are redundant – one only needs to ensure that the same units are used.
Also, the article does not state whether the number of ornaments is for a tree in the corner of a room or in the middle of a room, nor does it state the size of the ornaments relative to the tree. From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf Of John M. Steele Sent: 10 December 2012 11:44 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:52061] Re: FW: The Mathematical Formula For The Perfectly Decorated Christmas Tree My guess is the story is "corrupted" by journalists (including the PR flack at the University) who don't know any better. The actual code segment for the calculator uses "cm." Everything else in the article uses "cms." And where does one find a 2600' (800 m, give or take) Xmas tree anyway? It should really stand out, but I'm not aware of any trees approaching this. The formula for lights only allows for about three runs up the slant height of the Xmas tree. Off by an order of magnitude or more in my opinion, although obviously a matter of taste. (Detroit has around a 15 m tree with 19000 lights, not sure how long the strings are) --- On Mon, 12/10/12, John Altounji <phy...@msn.com> wrote: From: John Altounji <phy...@msn.com> Subject: [USMA:52060] FW: The Mathematical Formula For The Perfectly Decorated Christmas Tree To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> Date: Monday, December 10, 2012, 1:58 AM Are they doing it on purpose or they don’t know that it is cm and not cms. Why the tallest tree is reported in feet (click on the calculator link)? John Altounji One size does not fit all. Social promotion ruined Education. From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf Of John M. Steele Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:25 AM To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:52059] The Mathematical Formula For The Perfectly Decorated Christmas Tree A tale of three cultures? Some guys in the UK claim to have developed a formula for perfectly decorating the Xmas tree, lights, tinsel, ornaments, and angel or star based on the height of the tree. This article was published by Gizmodo Australia. As Australia is metric, I would expect them to appreciate that the formula is based on the tree's height in centimeters. But the author goes off in this strange rant about metric. I assume he might be American and this was originally published in the US. http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/12/the-mathematical-formula-for-the-perfectly-decorated-christmas-tree/ "Since the geniuses behind the formula hail from the UK and embrace that new-fangled metric system, you’ll need to know the height of your tree in centimetres." The comments section doesn't seem to appreciate his lack of love for metric. Oddly, no one comments on the formulas. The tree seems seriously under-decorated to me. Also, I would expect the formulas to consider the breadth of the tree at the bottom, and depend on the surface area of a cone approximating the tree
