There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with ! |
Fun talk:Pi
Blast. I messed that up. The Indiana thing. My wife is calling me to bed. Lucky I know. Can anybody fix it? --Bob_M (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
- I think I may have already fixed it. Good night, and thanks for the heads-up! human^{be in} 22:21, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
From the article:
"Is it really a number though, or is it a variable that represents a number?"
As I commented, it is not a variable, it is a number. Like 2 is a number. 2 is the symbol for , you know, 1+1. Pi is the symbol for the exact (irrational, etc.) number that is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, which is a constant. In our world, anyway. In YEC-land, it probably had to change value rapidly around 5900 years ago in order to make the big bang look like it happened. Pi started as 1 and has been climbing ever since! human^{be in} 14:25, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
- According to YECs, pi is the perimeter of a square divided by the length of the side, given the earth might as well be a vast plane.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 14:36, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
Cut from article[edit]
If I may be serious about this particular verse for a moment (gasp!): Ancient Hebrew, the language in which the Old Testament was written, had no fractions or decimal system; it could only express whole numbers. The 10 cubit diameter and 30 cubit circumference are rounded off to the nearest integer. If the diameter was actually 9.676 cubits (which rounds to 10), and the circumference was actually 30.398 cubits (which rounds to 30), then π would be 3.14159. (added to article by Tracer)
- Not to mention that most literature uses round numbers for things like that, whether fractions be available or not! ListenerX^{TalkerX} 20:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Image[edit]
Image is unnecessary when markup can do the same. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 04:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Eh, what do we know, Human is the expert web designer. -- Nx / talk 10:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Which image? There are several. ^{narchist} 11:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- This. -- Nx / talk 11:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- I figured as much. I'd also agree to use markup rather than the image, but the markup looks crap. ^{narchist} 11:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- This. -- Nx / talk 11:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Which image? There are several. ^{narchist} 11:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Pi = 3[edit]
According to this page, Pi, as described in the bible. actually does equal 3.14. Can anyone who's smarter than me (so anyone, basically) check the math? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm certainly not mathy, and you don't have to be for this one. All they've done is make some "assumptions" and "approximations" that give an answer of 3.14 - just the usual cretinist reverse logic, along with a huge lump of dishonesty. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- The math is fine. I wouldn't be as harsh as DeltaStar, it makes a small amount of sense - it's not that impressive to get a rough approximation of Pi from numbers related to a physical object if that object was basically round. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 13:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I would add, incidentally, that the same logic could be used in reverse - i.e to get a value of Pi closer to 2.88.MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 13:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- (EC) The calculation is fine, but it's a prime example of garbage in, garbage out. Firstly, this exegesis seems dodgy to me. "a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about" suggests to me that the _outer_ circumference of the thing is 30 cubits. I have no idea what reading of this text leads one to conclude that it describes the inner circumference. If my exegesis is correct, that would make Pi the commonly ridiculed 3. Secondly, semi-random values are assigned to the hand and the cubit. In reality, these two measurements are related to each other in a ratio (typically 7:1), though precisely which ratio is intended can never be know. Now, lets assume that I'm totally wrong, and that passage can somehow be read as describing the inner circumference. Assuming the median and most commonly attested ratio, 7:1. So we have a inner circumference of 30(7x), a thickness of x, and an outer radius of 5(7x). This makes the inner radius 34x (5(7x) - 1x) . So, to get Pi we divide 210x by 68x making Pi ~3.09. Better than 3, but still not brilliant. If we feel generous and use the 6:1 ratio not commonly attested to in the area, we get 3.1, not too bad an approximation I guess. The 4.5:1 ratio used in the reference to get it more or less spot on is not attested in any ancient structure. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site}
Down with pi![edit]
Everyone knows that tau is superior and more practical than pi!! This page should be renamed half tau. User:Lefty
- what about Phi (golden ratio) or e ? LordSlug ^{ 誇らしげに2008年からソファの上に手の平 } 02:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Fun?[edit]
I wrote up a little bit about the Indiana pi bill and I'll post it this weekend. Anyone object if I move this to "fun"space and replace with a short "pi" page basically to disambiguate between the new page, the squaring the circle page, and any other cranky pages? As it stands this article is not particularly on-mission, to be charitable. --MarkGall (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- On second look, some bits of it are worth salvaging. Maybe move to fun and copy some of the better sections to the new page? --MarkGall (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Go real slow there, this is one of our shining moments. Hack it up or move it to fun and you might incur the wrath of many. ħuman 06:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sure thing, don't want to step on any toes. Would it be OK to just add a sentence at the top linking to the other pi-related articles? --MarkGall (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I posted the new page and added links to it and some others at the top of this one. But really, this page is basically devoid of content and is written in the style of a funspace article -- would I really incur wrath if I moved it back there? --MarkGall (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree it is too much fun and should be moved. If we get one more we'll have a consensus. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- move it. Тy^{Talk.} 19:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sadly it is rather free of content. So I'd say move it. Sort of a shame though.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, I don't mean to suggest that it doesn't belong in "Best of Rationalwiki" or "Best of Amusement". Just seems like this is the sort of thing that Fun was made for. --MarkGall (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for making the move, Ty. I'll stick something new here in a couple days if there aren't more objections to the fun:nification. If it gets moved back, no big deal. --MarkGall (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sadly it is rather free of content. So I'd say move it. Sort of a shame though.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- move it. Тy^{Talk.} 19:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree it is too much fun and should be moved. If we get one more we'll have a consensus. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I posted the new page and added links to it and some others at the top of this one. But really, this page is basically devoid of content and is written in the style of a funspace article -- would I really incur wrath if I moved it back there? --MarkGall (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sure thing, don't want to step on any toes. Would it be OK to just add a sentence at the top linking to the other pi-related articles? --MarkGall (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Go real slow there, this is one of our shining moments. Hack it up or move it to fun and you might incur the wrath of many. ħuman 06:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh jesus[edit]
This page made all four bodily humors escape through my mouth at the same timeThreadnaught (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)