Can't see that ever changing...

Hard to predict the future.

Even this fellow could not:

]]>

I was not able to solve the problem entirely using the new Geometry commands.

Do you mean the new ones in the recent new M version? I haven't upgraded...too costly and probably not needed for my junior use, I think.

]]>I've since changed that to this, in radians:

```
r=3959*5280;
th=th/.FindRoot[2r Tan[th ]-100-2r*th==0,{th,0.02},WorkingPrecision->100]
h=r Sec[th]-r
0.01928719490295484482441479028250059270451052188967101077078489520191892182137176188340647018275855175
3888.614460593728239463379167602010692449187441461292338724354316092744378397068689244933991315452952
```

What answer do you get, and what is your M way?

]]>That is true about the slider.

]]>The minimum slider increment is 0.00000001, so a slider on C can't get the accuracy. Pity the minimum can't be set closer to the max rounding. But at that level of accuracy, the length of the slider would have to be increased greatly to get the desired effect...you'd have to be zoomed right in before you could use it at that extreme level.

Anyway, I can now get Gebra's maximum (I think) string height accuracy of 3888.61446059 (for which B3 = 99.99999999988358) with my zooming routine in about 2 minutes, including using *zoomin[1000]* and centreview[C] three times at the end.

Gebra gives four more decimal points after the 9 (ie, 4952), but I've not been able to get it to show the next digit, 3, that is given by W|A, which has 3888.614460593728 (correct to 12 decimal places) as its result, working at 100-digit accuracy.

]]>Best I could do was 100.001958977198. I would suggest a slider for C.

Manually playing around with C using methods like interval bisection yields

99.9999999778812 and with that a value of 3888.61445999891

]]>