File talk:Pi3.jpg

I feel that this should be π = 3, possibly π = 3.0, but not 3.00 ; it's being derived as a ratio of 10 cubits to 30 cubits. These figures are either correct to 1 s.f. (my guess) or arguably 2, but there's no way that it makes sense to read it as 10.0 cubits to 30.0 cubits - particularly given the nature of the cubit as a body-based measurement. Pseudomonas 06:19, 17 November 2008 (EST)
 * I'm inclined to agree. Although with, say, Schlafly Statistics, you're allowed to do such things, you should never quote your answer to a higher degree of sig figs that you have in your inputs. This should be 3.0 tops :P Nitpicky as hell, though, it looks better as 3.00 than 3.0. Is it the cubit that they're not entirely sure what length it is or is that the other greek measurment?  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 06:32, 17 November 2008 (EST)
 * The cubit is the distance from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger (hur hur), IIRC. Builders used wooden rods of the right length, but I don't imagine they were accurate to within 1%. Given that we don't do Schlafly Stats, I think the whole thing gives rationalists a bad name; taking something that's meant to be approximate and reading it in the strictest way is one type of strawman, really. [climbs off hobby-horse] Pseudomonas 06:51, 17 November 2008 (EST)