You don’t have to make it so complicated!

    : user@debian:~; python
    Python 2.7.3 (default, Mar 13 2014, 11:03:55) 
    [GCC 4.7.2] on linux2
    Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
    >>> import numpy as np
    >>> (10**(1+np.arange(24)/24.0)).reshape((2,3,4)).round()
    array([[[ 10.,  11.,  12.,  13.],
            [ 15.,  16.,  18.,  20.],
            [ 22.,  24.,  26.,  29.]],

           [[ 32.,  35.,  38.,  42.],
            [ 46.,  51.,  56.,  62.],
            [ 68.,  75.,  83.,  91.]]])
    >>> (10**(2+np.arange(48)/48.0)).reshape((2,3,8)).round()
    array([[[ 100.,  105.,  110.,  115.,  121.,  127.,  133.,  140.],
            [ 147.,  154.,  162.,  169.,  178.,  187.,  196.,  205.],
            [ 215.,  226.,  237.,  249.,  261.,  274.,  287.,  301.]],

           [[ 316.,  332.,  348.,  365.,  383.,  402.,  422.,  442.],
            [ 464.,  487.,  511.,  536.,  562.,  590.,  619.,  649.],
            [ 681.,  715.,  750.,  787.,  825.,  866.,  909.,  953.]]])
    >>> 

Hmm, Ruby has a numpy-like thing too, no? NArray, it’s called? There are a few minor differences, but you can do the same thing:

    : user@debian:~; irb
    irb(main):001:0> require 'narray'
    => true
    irb(main):002:0> (10*10**(NArray.float(24).indgen!/24)).round.reshape(4,3,2)
    => NArray(ref).int(4,3,2): 
    [ [ [ 10, 11, 12, 13 ], 
        [ 15, 16, 18, 20 ], 
        [ 22, 24, 26, 29 ] ], 
      [ [ 32, 35, 38, 42 ], 
        [ 46, 51, 56, 62 ], 
        [ 68, 75, 83, 91 ] ] ]
    irb(main):003:0> (100*10**(NArray.float(48).indgen!/48)).round.reshape(8,3,2)
    => NArray(ref).int(8,3,2): 
    [ [ [ 100, 105, 110, 115, 121, 127, 133, 140 ], 
        [ 147, 154, 162, 169, 178, 187, 196, 205 ], 
        [ 215, 226, 237, 249, 261, 274, 287, 301 ] ], 
      [ [ 316, 332, 348, 365, 383, 402, 422, 442 ], 
        [ 464, 487, 511, 536, 562, 590, 619, 649 ], 
        [ 681, 715, 750, 787, 825, 866, 909, 953 ] ] ]
    irb(main):004:0> 

Presumably 12, 24, and 48 were chosen because they are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_composite_numbers, and 96 and 192 for compatibility with 48 (since the HCNs in that neighborhood — 60, 120, and 180 — aren’t divisible by 48.)

(Related joke: How do we know the Babylonians were idiots? Because the day doesn’t have 83160 seconds.)