Fun talk:Pi/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 15 May 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

1,000,000

Can we move the million digits thing to its own article? human^{be in} 16:10, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

You got it. YB ^indeed! 01:33, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Awesome, thanks! human^{be in} 12:09, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Subject/headline

"We can safely assume that if I Kings had said the pot was ten cubits across and just a teeny bit less than three hundred and fifty five one-hundred-thirteenths of a cubit around, they wouldn't have." Wouldn't have what? What does this mean?

Also, there's no reason it *has* to be a fundamentalist who makes an explanation (and I don't see what's so wrong with the word explanation, either). I'm not a fundamentalist Christian, and I came to the same conclusion. Lurker 01:11, 25 February 2008 (EST)

But what is the matter with it the way it is written? This is, after all, a "fun" article. And it was fundies who tried to legislate pi=3 in the section above. As far as the first thing you brought up, I'm torn on it - there is some funny in there (IE, if they got pi almost right at 355/113, wouldn't that be cool). I think the writer meant they "wouldn't have had to rationalize the gross error.". But let's try to get this worked out here, I can't remember who added those two sections, they just need work. (What was the conclusion? That the Bible can't be used as an engineering text?) human 01:29, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Whatevs you can use the adjectives of your choice, so long's I've gone on record against :)

Eleland was the editor, and I'm not sure what he (yes, I'm assuming it's a he, so sue me) meant. I get the 355/113 thing, except that for it to be correct it should be 10*255/113, because it's the circumference. I'm just generally confused. What I assume it means is "if the Bible got pi right then fundies wouldn't need to rationalize why pi is wrong in the Bible", which is a bit of a no-brainer. Also, we should probably say 355 portions of 113 divisions, or some such, because I, like you, was hella confused the first pi or so readings of the text. Lurker 02:06, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Yes, I went and read the "apologetics" at AIG, and you're right about the 10* thing of course. I think we should just ax the second paragraph since it tries hard but, sadly, phails. It doesn't really add anything to the article. human 14:58, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Copied here for posterity:

In fairness, fundamentalist Christians have come up with some fairly ingenious rationalizations for this.[1] We can safely assume that if I Kings had said the pot was ten cubits across and just a teeny bit less than three hundred and fifty five one-hundred-thirteenths of a cubit around, they wouldn't have had to.

human 15:01, 25 February 2008 (EST)

(outdent) Sorry, it wasn't the clearest writing. My point was this: Fundies have rationalized why I Kings isn't really defining pi as 3, because real geometers and scientists have gone and proved that pi = 3.1415926536... But, if I Kings had given a surprisingly accurate value for pi, they would not have rationalized it - instead, they would have trumpeted it as proof of the infallibility of God and the Bible. <eleland/talkedits> 03:55, 26 February 2008 (EST)

That's ok. That's why I preserved it, in case we can make a useful chunk out of it one day. I get your point, of course. Actually, non-literalists (and even I, an atheist), can easily see that the numbers are just rough, to show how big the darn thing was. It's like comparing foreign country sizes (or regions) to US states, as if USAians really know how big most of the states are. And, if the dimensions had been more accurate, I think it would simply be ignored. Attackers of literalism bring it up, so the apologists had to say something. Though, yah, I guess if it was accurate, it would have been in my homskollar textbook (see Biblical scientific foreknowledge). human 14:50, 26 February 2008 (EST)

By the way, there may be a better place to introduce this issue, perhaps in some article on literalism or apologia? human 14:52, 26 February 2008 (EST)

If we are to apply scientific standards of accuracy to the bible, we might as well go all the way. After all, if it's circumference is 30.5 cubits, and it's diameter is 9.5 cubits we get a value for pi of around 3.21, therefore it might be very reasonable to just put this down under rounding errors. After all, scientists are allowed to round things, why wouldn't the bible be? InaVegt 12:02, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

The one tiny quibble with that argument is that scientists state what the rounding off is as part of their lab report. For instance, in college physics, measuring g with a pendulum and stopwatch, my "team" couldn't measure accurately enough to keep more than one digit in the result, so our answer was g = 1 * 10^1. The lack of decimal point and a zero to the right of it shows we only had one significant digit, by convention. The lab report explained why. If we had said g = 1.0 * 10^1 we would have been wrong. ħuman 14:48, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

I was told in my physics and chemistry classes that if you have something akin to '30*10^0', you can leave the '*10^0' out. In this case, I translated the text numbers literally to digital numbers, which both have two significant digits. I then applied standard margin of error to both, to show that 3.14 is within the standard margin of error of 30/10, or somewhat more scientific, (30*10^0)/(10*10^0). If someone claims the radius of the earth is 6 Mm and the circumference is 40 Mm (Both of which are true, albeit rounded) are you going to say he claims pi equals 3+1/3 as well? InaVegt 15:14, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Move to mainspace?

This is such an excellent article, covering all aspects of pi, truly, it is the definitive article on pi on all the innertubz. Surely we should move it to the mainspace? ħuman 01:40, 4 January 2009 (EST)

I actually agree that it should be moved to the mainspace. I took a closer look at it and it's not as bad as it looks at first blush. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:52, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Do you think we should wait for a third opinion, or do you want to go ahead and move it? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:55, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Move it! Toast 01:56, 4 January 2009 (EST)

BON comments

I'm guessing that was you who fixed everything. Sir, you are a speedy fellow. Yorick^Crass. 08:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I was mistaken, but still well done. Yorick^{Doing public school work} 08:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking to someone? - π 08:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No it's late and your page was the nearest dumpster to crawl into. Yorick^Crass. 09:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not my page. - π 09:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought it smelled suspiciously fresh. Yorick^{Doing public school work} 09:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Tired of that I Kings argument

I'm not sure what the argument about the inaccuracy of the calculated value of pi in I Kings proves. That the Bible isn't 100% correct in its reported measurements of a temple built 1000s of years ago? Give me a break - there are stronger arguments against the Bible out there. ^{— Unsigned, by: 96.227.250.101 / talk / contribs}

How about the fact that the guy is said to be 5 cubits high? A cubit was at least 18" - making the guy at least seven and half feet tall and possibly well over eight feet. Possible, but very unlikely. PardreObe (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a better and more balanced coverage of the π issue other articles directly addressing the 1 Kings passage. This article certainly isn't a rigorous mathematical treatment of π and isn't particularly serious. This could be addressed by anyone with a better understanding of the maths involved, perhaps. ^bomination 07:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are those who do claim that the Bible is accurate (except when it's inconvenient, of course). ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 10:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've speculated that the Hebrews didn't have fractions, and that the 10 and 30 figures are simple round-off errors. Irrational Atheist notes that the ancient Egyptian and Babylonian language had fractions, and that therefore ancient Hebrew probably had fractions too. (I note, however, that fractions appear nowhere in the Old Testament.) Wikipedia's entry on Numerical approximations of pi points out Rabbi Nehemiah's rationale from c.150 C.E., who claimed that the basin had a thick rim and the diameter was measured across the inside. -- Tracer (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

But there's no record of people actually measuring it a certain way. These are all attempts to rationalize why the measurements given would be off. Take it as an example that the Bible was written by men, not by an all-knowing deity. That's all. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Indiana

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

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)

And then there's the possibility that the bowl wasn't a perfect circle, given the doubtlessly imprecise tools potters of that day would've used. ^{— Unsigned, by: 134.129.57.225 / talk / contribs}

Image

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. ^bomination 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. ^bomination 11:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? Because it's not a serif font? I changed to Pi to a serif font because it looks better and matches the other Pis on the page (the output of the math tag is in serif when it outputs html, which depends on your browser and your preferences) -- Nx / talk 12:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Pi = 3

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}