On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 10:08:05 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:

> But I'm glad it happened. Science class is for teaching science.
> Which, BTW, /does/ involve indoctrinating students in thinking
> scientifically.

Oh, I'm all in favor of teaching children critical teaching skills in
school. As long as the teacher doesn't tell them what conclusions
they should use those skills to draw, there is no legitimate cause
for complaint.

Even if some parents are unhappy with the results.

John Savard

On 2022-09-10 22:17, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:52316d9f-ed71-4758-ba50-6d76a7a8c410n@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 8:22:12 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda
>> Jibini wrote:
>>>
>>> But he *can't* help himself. He literally *can't* resist. The
>>> hook is set *way* too deep. And he sets it deeper every day,
>>> all by himself.
>>
>> I'm amused every time Terry says this. Who is the
>> person who is so obsessed with another that he has to mention
>> him in his sig file?
>
> That's just laziness. Haven't found a better fish lately.
>
> Plus, it's a hook in *your* mouth.
>
>> Who has free board in Terry's brain?
>
> You're not as obsessed with me as Alan is, but you're not that far
> behind him.
>
> This very conversation is proof of that. You couldn't help yourself.
> You *had* to comment.
>

And you *have* to convince yourself of that...

:-)

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 9:53:47 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:

> Now, if pi ever turns out to have a closed value, or even to be a
> repeating decimal, that would change the situation. But it hasn't so
> far. And so far is, IIRC, into the millions of digits.

I wouldn't worry about that happening, if I were you.

Pi has been *proven* to be transcendental, and, hence, irrational.

John Savard

On 2022-09-11 08:53, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 05:39:50 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 05:57:18 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 2:30:42 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>> news:36d6c06f-a244-440e...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>> Which is why I noted that the accomodation they ask for cannot
>>>>> be granted. And instead I noted how we would have to proceed
>>>>> instead in order to respect the First Amendment rights of
>>>>> Creationist parents.
>>>
>>>> There is no first amendment right to teach religion in science
>>>> class. The courts are just too cowardly to say so out loud.
>>> I did not advocate teaching any religion in science class.
>>>
>>> I advocated omitting one bit of the science of evolution in
>>> science class, the fact that it really happened, instead of merely
>>> being something claimed by one particular group of scientists,
>>> that, for no particular reason, is the only version of life's origins
>>> being presented in science class.
>>>
>>> The reason is to avoid teaching students that the literal word of
>>> the Bible is wrong. Because that would be indoctrinating students
>>> in a position concerning a matter about which some denominations
>>> are concerned.
>>
>> Will you also suppress that the earth rotates,
>> and that pi is a number greater than three?
>
> Pi, to 0 decimal places is, in point of fact, "3".
>
> Just because it isn't a practical value doesn't make 3 not the value
> of pi to 0 decimal places.
>
> Also, IIRC, the assertion involves merging two slightly different
> descriptions of the same object. IOW, it is inferential, not explicit.
>
> Now, if pi ever turns out to have a closed value, or even to be a
> repeating decimal, that would change the situation. But it hasn't so
> far. And so far is, IIRC, into the millions of digits.

"It hasn't so far" implies there is a chance it could be so proven...

....and there is absolutely no chance of that.

Pi has been PROVEN to be an irrational number and no irrational number
ever has an infinite repeating pattern of digits.

On Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 16:53:47 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 05:39:50 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 05:57:18 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 2:30:42 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >> > Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> >> > news:36d6c06f-a244-440e...@googlegroups.com:
> >> > > Which is why I noted that the accomodation they ask for cannot
> >> > > be granted. And instead I noted how we would have to proceed
> >> > > instead in order to respect the First Amendment rights of
> >> > > Creationist parents.
> >>
> >> > There is no first amendment right to teach religion in science
> >> > class. The courts are just too cowardly to say so out loud.
> >> I did not advocate teaching any religion in science class.
> >>
> >> I advocated omitting one bit of the science of evolution in
> >> science class, the fact that it really happened, instead of merely
> >> being something claimed by one particular group of scientists,
> >> that, for no particular reason, is the only version of life's origins
> >> being presented in science class.
> >>
> >> The reason is to avoid teaching students that the literal word of
> >> the Bible is wrong. Because that would be indoctrinating students
> >> in a position concerning a matter about which some denominations
> >> are concerned.
> >
> >Will you also suppress that the earth rotates,
> >and that pi is a number greater than three?
> Pi, to 0 decimal places is, in point of fact, "3".
>
> Just because it isn't a practical value doesn't make 3 not the value
> of pi to 0 decimal places.
>
> Also, IIRC, the assertion involves merging two slightly different
> descriptions of the same object. IOW, it is inferential, not explicit.

It's 1 Kings 7:23, see also 2 Chronicles 4:2, and it's
10 cubits across, and 30 cubits around. So you need
pi to round to 3.0.

My opinion is that this object probably never
existed, and measurements of it are not factual.

Ancient mathematicians struggled with measuring
circles. Babylonians and Egyptians knew that 3
wasn't correct, but they would use it as a convenient
rough approximation.

> Now, if pi ever turns out to have a closed value, or even to be a
> repeating decimal, that would change the situation. But it hasn't so
> far. And so far is, IIRC, into the millions of digits.

I've complained here frequently about science fiction
or fantasy in which pi is different, or isn't irrational,
or contains a coded message.

In article <gs0shhhrqn3u7866a3qp5jlclgpk2mf2t0@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 05:39:50 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
><rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 05:57:18 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 2:30:42 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
>Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> > Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>> > news:36d6c06f-a244-440e...@googlegroups.com:
>>> > > Which is why I noted that the accomodation they ask for cannot
>>> > > be granted. And instead I noted how we would have to proceed
>>> > > instead in order to respect the First Amendment rights of
>>> > > Creationist parents.
>>>
>>> > There is no first amendment right to teach religion in science
>>> > class. The courts are just too cowardly to say so out loud.
>>> I did not advocate teaching any religion in science class.
>>>
>>> I advocated omitting one bit of the science of evolution in
>>> science class, the fact that it really happened, instead of merely
>>> being something claimed by one particular group of scientists,
>>> that, for no particular reason, is the only version of life's origins
>>> being presented in science class.
>>>
>>> The reason is to avoid teaching students that the literal word of
>>> the Bible is wrong. Because that would be indoctrinating students
>>> in a position concerning a matter about which some denominations
>>> are concerned.
>>
>>Will you also suppress that the earth rotates,
>>and that pi is a number greater than three?
>
>Pi, to 0 decimal places is, in point of fact, "3".
>
>Just because it isn't a practical value doesn't make 3 not the value
>of pi to 0 decimal places.

(Hal Heydt)
In physics, when developing a first approximation, pi is often
considered to have a value of 3. Sometimes, for rougher
appoximations, it is taken to have a value of 1.

>Now, if pi ever turns out to have a closed value, or even to be a
>repeating decimal, that would change the situation. But it hasn't so
>far. And so far is, IIRC, into the millions of digits.

As my mathematical downfall was integral calculus, I can't give
specifics, but I beleive there is a proof that pi is
transcendental. So...not going to turn out to be
rational...ever. And--FYI--so far as I know the calculation is
into the billions, if not trillion digits.

On 11/09/2022 10.53, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 05:39:50 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>> Will you also suppress that the earth rotates,
>> and that pi is a number greater than three?
>
> Pi, to 0 decimal places is, in point of fact, "3".
>
> Just because it isn't a practical value doesn't make 3 not the value
> of pi to 0 decimal places.
>
> Also, IIRC, the assertion involves merging two slightly different
> descriptions of the same object. IOW, it is inferential, not explicit.
>
> Now, if pi ever turns out to have a closed value, or even to be a
> repeating decimal, that would change the situation. But it hasn't so
> far. And so far is, IIRC, into the millions of digits.

I have no idea what you mean by a "closed value". However, I do know
that pi has been proven to be an irrational number and thus does not
have a repeating decimal representation. Nor does it have a repeating
representation in any integer base.

Earlier this year, Emma Haruka Iwao finished calculating it to
100 trillion digits (presumably "short scale"). I don't know it
that includes the initial "3" or not.

<https://thenewstack.io/how-googles-emma-haruka-iwao-helped-set-a-new-record-for-pi/>

--
Michael F. Stemper
Galatians 3:28

On 11/09/2022 13.13, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 16:53:47 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:

>> Now, if pi ever turns out to have a closed value, or even to be a
>> repeating decimal, that would change the situation. But it hasn't so
>> far. And so far is, IIRC, into the millions of digits.
>
> I've complained here frequently about science fiction
> or fantasy in which pi is different, or isn't irrational,
> or contains a coded message.

And rightly so.

However, I will defend spec-fic in which characters refer to any
device used to probe the geometry of space (whichever space they
happen to b in) as a "pi-meter".

If we ever get to the levels of technology and physics where we're
able to do that, people will quite likely refer to such a device
in exactly that way. Except for its developer, who will be left
back in Mission Control because our band of adventurers are sick
and tired of listening to their pedantic corrections.

--
Michael F. Stemper
Galatians 3:28

In article <78158e6b-2828-4be7-8402-f15418e10d83n@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 16:53:47 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 05:39:50 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 05:57:18 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>> >> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 2:30:42 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
>Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> >> > Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>> >> > news:36d6c06f-a244-440e...@googlegroups.com:
>> >> > > Which is why I noted that the accomodation they ask for cannot
>> >> > > be granted. And instead I noted how we would have to proceed
>> >> > > instead in order to respect the First Amendment rights of
>> >> > > Creationist parents.
>> >>
>> >> > There is no first amendment right to teach religion in science
>> >> > class. The courts are just too cowardly to say so out loud.
>> >> I did not advocate teaching any religion in science class.
>> >>
>> >> I advocated omitting one bit of the science of evolution in
>> >> science class, the fact that it really happened, instead of merely
>> >> being something claimed by one particular group of scientists,
>> >> that, for no particular reason, is the only version of life's origins
>> >> being presented in science class.
>> >>
>> >> The reason is to avoid teaching students that the literal word of
>> >> the Bible is wrong. Because that would be indoctrinating students
>> >> in a position concerning a matter about which some denominations
>> >> are concerned.
>> >
>> >Will you also suppress that the earth rotates,
>> >and that pi is a number greater than three?
>> Pi, to 0 decimal places is, in point of fact, "3".
>>
>> Just because it isn't a practical value doesn't make 3 not the value
>> of pi to 0 decimal places.
>>
>> Also, IIRC, the assertion involves merging two slightly different
>> descriptions of the same object. IOW, it is inferential, not explicit.
>
>It's 1 Kings 7:23, see also 2 Chronicles 4:2, and it's
>10 cubits across, and 30 cubits around. So you need
>pi to round to 3.0.
>
>My opinion is that this object probably never
>existed, and measurements of it are not factual.
>
>Ancient mathematicians struggled with measuring
>circles. Babylonians and Egyptians knew that 3
>wasn't correct, but they would use it as a convenient
>rough approximation.

(Hal Heydt)
While it's fun to rub the noses of Biblical literalists in that
example, in actual practice one would probably consider it to be
an observational approximation.

What it tends to remind me of is the flaw in using a (relatively)
modern calculator and then accepting the results uncritically.

One example was a newspaper article that said that the press was
kept back "at least 331 feet" from an arriving VIP in Korea.
Rather obviously, the original dispatch would have said "100
meters". The editor would have done much better to have rendered
it for a US readership as "100 yards", as that carries a similar
connotation of an eyeball estimate of the distance.

Another example is a hotel swimming pool I saw once. It had the
usual edge depth markings for every 6 inches of water depth.
Right next to the those markings--being Oh! So!
International!--it had the depth in metric. Specifically (too
damned specifically) in centimeters, to two decimal places. I
defy anyone to meaningfully measure the depth of a swimming pool
acurately to 0.1mm.

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 3:12:38 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <78158e6b-2828-4be7...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >On Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 16:53:47 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 05:39:50 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 05:57:18 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> >> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 2:30:42 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
> >Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >> >> > Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> >> >> > news:36d6c06f-a244-440e...@googlegroups.com:
> >> >> > > Which is why I noted that the accomodation they ask for cannot
> >> >> > > be granted. And instead I noted how we would have to proceed
> >> >> > > instead in order to respect the First Amendment rights of
> >> >> > > Creationist parents.
> >> >>
> >> >> > There is no first amendment right to teach religion in science
> >> >> > class. The courts are just too cowardly to say so out loud.
> >> >> I did not advocate teaching any religion in science class.
> >> >>
> >> >> I advocated omitting one bit of the science of evolution in
> >> >> science class, the fact that it really happened, instead of merely
> >> >> being something claimed by one particular group of scientists,
> >> >> that, for no particular reason, is the only version of life's origins
> >> >> being presented in science class.
> >> >>
> >> >> The reason is to avoid teaching students that the literal word of
> >> >> the Bible is wrong. Because that would be indoctrinating students
> >> >> in a position concerning a matter about which some denominations
> >> >> are concerned.
> >> >
> >> >Will you also suppress that the earth rotates,
> >> >and that pi is a number greater than three?
> >> Pi, to 0 decimal places is, in point of fact, "3".
> >>
> >> Just because it isn't a practical value doesn't make 3 not the value
> >> of pi to 0 decimal places.
> >>
> >> Also, IIRC, the assertion involves merging two slightly different
> >> descriptions of the same object. IOW, it is inferential, not explicit.
> >
> >It's 1 Kings 7:23, see also 2 Chronicles 4:2, and it's
> >10 cubits across, and 30 cubits around. So you need
> >pi to round to 3.0.
> >
> >My opinion is that this object probably never
> >existed, and measurements of it are not factual.
> >
> >Ancient mathematicians struggled with measuring
> >circles. Babylonians and Egyptians knew that 3
> >wasn't correct, but they would use it as a convenient
> >rough approximation.
> (Hal Heydt)
> While it's fun to rub the noses of Biblical literalists in that
> example, in actual practice one would probably consider it to be
> an observational approximation.
>
> What it tends to remind me of is the flaw in using a (relatively)
> modern calculator and then accepting the results uncritically.
>
> One example was a newspaper article that said that the press was
> kept back "at least 331 feet" from an arriving VIP in Korea.
> Rather obviously, the original dispatch would have said "100
> meters". The editor would have done much better to have rendered
> it for a US readership as "100 yards", as that carries a similar
> connotation of an eyeball estimate of the distance.
>
> Another example is a hotel swimming pool I saw once. It had the
> usual edge depth markings for every 6 inches of water depth.
> Right next to the those markings--being Oh! So!
> International!--it had the depth in metric. Specifically (too
> damned specifically) in centimeters, to two decimal places. I
> defy anyone to meaningfully measure the depth of a swimming pool
> acurately to 0.1mm.

I'm reminded one edition of Riverworld by PJF in which the mountains
on each side of the valley had heights such as '9144 meters'. Some one
had decided that '30,000' feet was too parochial.

Pt

On Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 20:12:38 UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <78158e6b-2828-4be7...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >It's 1 Kings 7:23, see also 2 Chronicles 4:2, and it's
> >10 cubits across, and 30 cubits around. So you need
> >pi to round to 3.0.
> >
> >My opinion is that this object probably never
> >existed, and measurements of it are not factual.
> >
> >Ancient mathematicians struggled with measuring
> >circles. Babylonians and Egyptians knew that 3
> >wasn't correct, but they would use it as a convenient
> >rough approximation.
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> While it's fun to rub the noses of Biblical literalists in that
> example, in actual practice one would probably consider it to be
> an observational approximation.
>
> What it tends to remind me of is the flaw in using a (relatively)
> modern calculator and then accepting the results uncritically.
>
> One example was a newspaper article that said that the press was
> kept back "at least 331 feet" from an arriving VIP in Korea.
> Rather obviously, the original dispatch would have said "100
> meters". The editor would have done much better to have rendered
> it for a US readership as "100 yards", as that carries a similar
> connotation of an eyeball estimate of the distance.
>
> Another example is a hotel swimming pool I saw once. It had the
> usual edge depth markings for every 6 inches of water depth.
> Right next to the those markings--being Oh! So!
> International!--it had the depth in metric. Specifically (too
> damned specifically) in centimeters, to two decimal places. I
> defy anyone to meaningfully measure the depth of a swimming pool
> accurately to 0.1mm.

Evaporation alone... it is precise, though!

A related issue, but not yours, is that the bible
"Book of Numbers" contains counts of people
in lots of families of wandering Israel (it's quite
dull), and as far as I remember, /they/ all have
improbably round numbers. For instance:
<https://www.agapebiblestudy.com/charts/Census%20of%20the%2012%20Tribes%20from%20the%20book%20of%20Numbers.htm>

I haven't searched exhaustively, but Wikipedia d kills...
doesn't seem to consider that as significant.

You could say that they only counted in tens.
But here <https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/matthew-henry/Num.1.1-Num.1.16>
if I follow, Israel (men, and not Levites) was counted
once previously and the total was the same (603,550).
This is a "commentary" which credits this fact (?) to
"Providence", meaning God, which I suppose means
that he has already decided, and has put into effect,
how many Israelites there will be at this point.

In which case why did they have to count them?

P.S. After this, God kills... everyone, eventually.
Everyone who was promised, "I'll lead you to Israel,
it's great!"

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:rI26I8.1CGq@kithrup.com:

> In article <gs0shhhrqn3u7866a3qp5jlclgpk2mf2t0@4ax.com>,
> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 05:39:50 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>><rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 05:57:18 UTC+1, Quadibloc
>>>wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 2:30:42 PM UTC-6, Jibini
>>>> Kula
>>Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>> > Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>> > news:36d6c06f-a244-440e...@googlegroups.com:
>>>> > > Which is why I noted that the accomodation they ask for
>>>> > > cannot be granted. And instead I noted how we would have
>>>> > > to proceed instead in order to respect the First
>>>> > > Amendment rights of Creationist parents.
>>>>
>>>> > There is no first amendment right to teach religion in
>>>> > science class. The courts are just too cowardly to say so
>>>> > out loud.
>>>> I did not advocate teaching any religion in science class.
>>>>
>>>> I advocated omitting one bit of the science of evolution in
>>>> science class, the fact that it really happened, instead of
>>>> merely being something claimed by one particular group of
>>>> scientists, that, for no particular reason, is the only
>>>> version of life's origins being presented in science class.
>>>>
>>>> The reason is to avoid teaching students that the literal
>>>> word of the Bible is wrong. Because that would be
>>>> indoctrinating students in a position concerning a matter
>>>> about which some denominations are concerned.
>>>
>>>Will you also suppress that the earth rotates,
>>>and that pi is a number greater than three?
>>
>>Pi, to 0 decimal places is, in point of fact, "3".
>>
>>Just because it isn't a practical value doesn't make 3 not the
>>value of pi to 0 decimal places.
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> In physics, when developing a first approximation, pi is often
> considered to have a value of 3. Sometimes, for rougher
> appoximations, it is taken to have a value of 1.
>
>>Now, if pi ever turns out to have a closed value, or even to be
>>a repeating decimal, that would change the situation. But it
>>hasn't so far. And so far is, IIRC, into the millions of digits.
>
> As my mathematical downfall was integral calculus, I can't give
> specifics, but I beleive there is a proof that pi is
> transcendental. So...not going to turn out to be
> rational...ever. And--FYI--so far as I know the calculation is
> into the billions, if not trillion digits.
>
As of August of last year, 62.8 trillion.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On 2022-09-10 7:41 p.m., Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <7effe4d8-0b1a-40c2-a53d-f60af0050c9an@googlegroups.com>,
> Jonathan Harston <jgh@mdfs.net> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 5:01:21 PM UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> Alternatively.... Eliminate sex-based pay disparity by bringing
>>> the pay of women up to that of men. That will increase the
>>> chances that a woman can afford to be the sole support of a
>>> family, and two-income families will do quite well.
>>
>> To do that you'd have to somehow make it illegal for women
>> to make life choices that result in them being in low-paid jobs.
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> Or, as a society, reassess the value (and pay) of what are now
> low paying jobs. And, perhaps, some high paying jobs, as well.
> Are CEOs really worth what they're paid?

It doesn't really matter whether they are or not when they are in such
an advantageous position when it comes to setting their own pay rates.

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 11:49:01 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 9:53:47 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>
> > Now, if pi ever turns out to have a closed value, or even to be a
> > repeating decimal, that would change the situation. But it hasn't so
> > far. And so far is, IIRC, into the millions of digits.
> I wouldn't worry about that happening, if I were you.
>
> Pi has been *proven* to be transcendental, and, hence, irrational.

Carl Louis Ferdinand von Lindemann, 1882.

John Savard

On 11/09/2022 14.56, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 3:12:38 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <78158e6b-2828-4be7...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 16:53:47 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:

>>>> Pi, to 0 decimal places is, in point of fact, "3".
>>>>
>>>> Just because it isn't a practical value doesn't make 3 not the value
>>>> of pi to 0 decimal places.
>>>>
>>>> Also, IIRC, the assertion involves merging two slightly different
>>>> descriptions of the same object. IOW, it is inferential, not explicit.
>>>
>>> It's 1 Kings 7:23, see also 2 Chronicles 4:2, and it's
>>> 10 cubits across, and 30 cubits around. So you need
>>> pi to round to 3.0.
>>>
>>> My opinion is that this object probably never
>>> existed, and measurements of it are not factual.
>>>
>>> Ancient mathematicians struggled with measuring
>>> circles. Babylonians and Egyptians knew that 3
>>> wasn't correct, but they would use it as a convenient
>>> rough approximation.
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> While it's fun to rub the noses of Biblical literalists in that
>> example, in actual practice one would probably consider it to be
>> an observational approximation.
>>
>> What it tends to remind me of is the flaw in using a (relatively)
>> modern calculator and then accepting the results uncritically.
>>
>> One example was a newspaper article that said that the press was
>> kept back "at least 331 feet" from an arriving VIP in Korea.
>> Rather obviously, the original dispatch would have said "100
>> meters". The editor would have done much better to have rendered
>> it for a US readership as "100 yards", as that carries a similar
>> connotation of an eyeball estimate of the distance.
>>
>> Another example is a hotel swimming pool I saw once. It had the
>> usual edge depth markings for every 6 inches of water depth.
>> Right next to the those markings--being Oh! So!
>> International!--it had the depth in metric. Specifically (too
>> damned specifically) in centimeters, to two decimal places. I
>> defy anyone to meaningfully measure the depth of a swimming pool
>> acurately to 0.1mm.
>
> I'm reminded one edition of Riverworld by PJF in which the mountains
> on each side of the valley had heights such as '9144 meters'. Some one
> had decided that '30,000' feet was too parochial.

Second the motion. That was really grating.

--
Michael F. Stemper
The name of the story is "A Sound of Thunder".
It was written by Ray Bradbury. You're welcome.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 12:56:44 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I'm reminded one edition of Riverworld by PJF in which the mountains
>on each side of the valley had heights such as '9144 meters'. Some one
>had decided that '30,000' feet was too parochial.

That must be the edition that I read. I even noted in my write-up for
The Dark Design that there were lines like "Jill had assumed that the
mountains were from 4564 to 6096 meters high". That's a pretty
specific assumption.

So you're saying that the original book used feet and some editor
later came along and converted it to meters?

-- Bob

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 8:19:07 AM UTC-6, Bice wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 12:56:44 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >I'm reminded one edition of Riverworld by PJF in which the mountains
> >on each side of the valley had heights such as '9144 meters'. Some one
> >had decided that '30,000' feet was too parochial.

> That must be the edition that I read. I even noted in my write-up for
> The Dark Design that there were lines like "Jill had assumed that the
> mountains were from 4564 to 6096 meters high". That's a pretty
> specific assumption.

> So you're saying that the original book used feet and some editor
> later came along and converted it to meters?

I think we can be highly confident that he is saying that. So, in this case,
"Jill had assumed that the mountains were from 15,000 to 20,000 feet
high" would be the original text of the U.S. edition of the book.

John Savard

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:19:07 AM UTC-4, Bice wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 12:56:44 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >I'm reminded one edition of Riverworld by PJF in which the mountains
> >on each side of the valley had heights such as '9144 meters'. Some one
> >had decided that '30,000' feet was too parochial.
> That must be the edition that I read. I even noted in my write-up for
> The Dark Design that there were lines like "Jill had assumed that the
> mountains were from 4564 to 6096 meters high". That's a pretty
> specific assumption.
>
> So you're saying that the original book used feet and some editor
> later came along and converted it to meters?

It sure looked like that.

pt

In article <2946a01c-a308-4a7b-bdd5-e9234b8fc7cdn@googlegroups.com>,
pete...@gmail.com <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:19:07 AM UTC-4, Bice wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 12:56:44 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >I'm reminded one edition of Riverworld by PJF in which the mountains
>> >on each side of the valley had heights such as '9144 meters'.
>Some one
>> >had decided that '30,000' feet was too parochial.
>> That must be the edition that I read. I even noted in my write-up for
>> The Dark Design that there were lines like "Jill had assumed that the
>> mountains were from 4564 to 6096 meters high". That's a pretty
>> specific assumption.
>>
>> So you're saying that the original book used feet and some editor
>> later came along and converted it to meters?
>
>It sure looked like that.

As I recall, that sort of inept conversion (in the other direction)
turned up in French to English translations of Jules Verne.

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 10:48:59 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 9:53:47 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> Now, if pi ever turns out to have a closed value, or even to be a
>> repeating decimal, that would change the situation. But it hasn't so
>> far. And so far is, IIRC, into the millions of digits.
>
>I wouldn't worry about that happening, if I were you.
>
>Pi has been *proven* to be transcendental, and, hence, irrational.

And, since we are dealing with Mathematics, "proven" actually means
something.

And I am glad to hear it.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 11:13:46 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 16:53:47 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 05:39:50 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 05:57:18 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>> >> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 2:30:42 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> >> > Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>> >> > news:36d6c06f-a244-440e...@googlegroups.com:
>> >> > > Which is why I noted that the accomodation they ask for cannot
>> >> > > be granted. And instead I noted how we would have to proceed
>> >> > > instead in order to respect the First Amendment rights of
>> >> > > Creationist parents.
>> >>
>> >> > There is no first amendment right to teach religion in science
>> >> > class. The courts are just too cowardly to say so out loud.
>> >> I did not advocate teaching any religion in science class.
>> >>
>> >> I advocated omitting one bit of the science of evolution in
>> >> science class, the fact that it really happened, instead of merely
>> >> being something claimed by one particular group of scientists,
>> >> that, for no particular reason, is the only version of life's origins
>> >> being presented in science class.
>> >>
>> >> The reason is to avoid teaching students that the literal word of
>> >> the Bible is wrong. Because that would be indoctrinating students
>> >> in a position concerning a matter about which some denominations
>> >> are concerned.
>> >
>> >Will you also suppress that the earth rotates,
>> >and that pi is a number greater than three?
>> Pi, to 0 decimal places is, in point of fact, "3".
>>
>> Just because it isn't a practical value doesn't make 3 not the value
>> of pi to 0 decimal places.
>>
>> Also, IIRC, the assertion involves merging two slightly different
>> descriptions of the same object. IOW, it is inferential, not explicit.
>
>It's 1 Kings 7:23, see also 2 Chronicles 4:2, and it's
>10 cubits across, and 30 cubits around. So you need
>pi to round to 3.0.

But do both figures occur /together/ in one place or the other? I know
I have thought not in the past, but my memory sometimes shifts about.

Note that a plaque 1 cubit wide that shows an image (pomegranate?
goat? whatever) might well have an edge, so that 30 of them together
would be more than 30 cubits.

3.0 would be 1 decimal place, and 3.1 would be the correct value of pi
to 1 decimal place.

3 is the correct value of pi to 0 decimal places.

Care to guess how likely knowledge of decimal places was at the time?

>My opinion is that this object probably never
>existed, and measurements of it are not factual.

Don't see why. 30/pi is about 9.5 cubits. The rim could have been 0.25
cubit, and the width measured from the inner side of the rim.

But it's simpler just to acknowledge the fact that pi has the value of
3 to 0 decimal places.

>Ancient mathematicians struggled with measuring
>circles. Babylonians and Egyptians knew that 3
>wasn't correct, but they would use it as a convenient
>rough approximation.

Archimedes produced the common approximation of 22/7. Whether he was
the first I do not know. The method involved computing the
circumferences of two polygons, one inscribing and the other
circumscribing the same circle. By the time 22/7 is reached, they have
a /lot/ of sides, so some heavy-duty computation is involved.

>> Now, if pi ever turns out to have a closed value, or even to be a
>> repeating decimal, that would change the situation. But it hasn't so
>> far. And so far is, IIRC, into the millions of digits.
>
>I've complained here frequently about science fiction
>or fantasy in which pi is different, or isn't irrational,
>or contains a coded message.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 19:02:33 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:

>In article <78158e6b-2828-4be7-8402-f15418e10d83n@googlegroups.com>,
>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>On Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 16:53:47 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 05:39:50 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 05:57:18 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> >> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 2:30:42 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
>>Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> >> > Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>> >> > news:36d6c06f-a244-440e...@googlegroups.com:
>>> >> > > Which is why I noted that the accomodation they ask for cannot
>>> >> > > be granted. And instead I noted how we would have to proceed
>>> >> > > instead in order to respect the First Amendment rights of
>>> >> > > Creationist parents.
>>> >>
>>> >> > There is no first amendment right to teach religion in science
>>> >> > class. The courts are just too cowardly to say so out loud.
>>> >> I did not advocate teaching any religion in science class.
>>> >>
>>> >> I advocated omitting one bit of the science of evolution in
>>> >> science class, the fact that it really happened, instead of merely
>>> >> being something claimed by one particular group of scientists,
>>> >> that, for no particular reason, is the only version of life's origins
>>> >> being presented in science class.
>>> >>
>>> >> The reason is to avoid teaching students that the literal word of
>>> >> the Bible is wrong. Because that would be indoctrinating students
>>> >> in a position concerning a matter about which some denominations
>>> >> are concerned.
>>> >
>>> >Will you also suppress that the earth rotates,
>>> >and that pi is a number greater than three?
>>> Pi, to 0 decimal places is, in point of fact, "3".
>>>
>>> Just because it isn't a practical value doesn't make 3 not the value
>>> of pi to 0 decimal places.
>>>
>>> Also, IIRC, the assertion involves merging two slightly different
>>> descriptions of the same object. IOW, it is inferential, not explicit.
>>
>>It's 1 Kings 7:23, see also 2 Chronicles 4:2, and it's
>>10 cubits across, and 30 cubits around. So you need
>>pi to round to 3.0.
>>
>>My opinion is that this object probably never
>>existed, and measurements of it are not factual.
>>
>>Ancient mathematicians struggled with measuring
>>circles. Babylonians and Egyptians knew that 3
>>wasn't correct, but they would use it as a convenient
>>rough approximation.
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>While it's fun to rub the noses of Biblical literalists in that
>example, in actual practice one would probably consider it to be
>an observational approximation.
>
>What it tends to remind me of is the flaw in using a (relatively)
>modern calculator and then accepting the results uncritically.
>
>One example was a newspaper article that said that the press was
>kept back "at least 331 feet" from an arriving VIP in Korea.
>Rather obviously, the original dispatch would have said "100
>meters". The editor would have done much better to have rendered
>it for a US readership as "100 yards", as that carries a similar
>connotation of an eyeball estimate of the distance.

"110 yards" would have been almost spot-on, being 330 feet.

>Another example is a hotel swimming pool I saw once. It had the
>usual edge depth markings for every 6 inches of water depth.
>Right next to the those markings--being Oh! So!
>International!--it had the depth in metric. Specifically (too
>damned specifically) in centimeters, to two decimal places. I
>defy anyone to meaningfully measure the depth of a swimming pool
>acurately to 0.1mm.

My indoor-outdoor thermometer does it much better:
-- on one side, I have degrees C in 10-degree intervals with 0 at 0
degrees C
-- on the other side, I have degrees F in 20-degree intervals with 0
at 0 degrees F
so I can read the temp either way (currently: 26C/76-plus-a-smidgeonF
).

The pool should probably have done the same thing -- not with degrees
C and F, of course, but with feet and meters on separate markers at
separate levels as appropriate.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 13:56:20 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
<michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/09/2022 10.53, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 05:39:50 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>> Will you also suppress that the earth rotates,
>>> and that pi is a number greater than three?
>>
>> Pi, to 0 decimal places is, in point of fact, "3".
>>
>> Just because it isn't a practical value doesn't make 3 not the value
>> of pi to 0 decimal places.
>>
>> Also, IIRC, the assertion involves merging two slightly different
>> descriptions of the same object. IOW, it is inferential, not explicit.
>>
>> Now, if pi ever turns out to have a closed value, or even to be a
>> repeating decimal, that would change the situation. But it hasn't so
>> far. And so far is, IIRC, into the millions of digits.
>
>I have no idea what you mean by a "closed value". However, I do know
>that pi has been proven to be an irrational number and thus does not
>have a repeating decimal representation. Nor does it have a repeating
>representation in any integer base.

I suspect it was this
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-form_expression> as applied to
sequences/series (which I have never been able to distinguish
properly). If we consider a number such as pi, the closed value would
be a closed-form expression that computes its value in one step.

This is the result of a lot of math cooking in my brain for nearly 40
years. A certain lack of coherence is only to be expected.

>Earlier this year, Emma Haruka Iwao finished calculating it to
>100 trillion digits (presumably "short scale"). I don't know it
>that includes the initial "3" or not.
>
><https://thenewstack.io/how-googles-emma-haruka-iwao-helped-set-a-new-record-for-pi/>

Well, good for them.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:01:23 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 11:13:46 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

> >My opinion is that this object probably never
> >existed, and measurements of it are not factual.

> Don't see why. 30/pi is about 9.5 cubits. The rim could have been 0.25
> cubit, and the width measured from the inner side of the rim.

In fact, I deal with this very issue on my web page at

http://www.quadibloc.com/feat.htm

wherein I note that a molten sea with a diameter ranging from 9.5 cubits to
9.70845... cubits would have a circumference ranging from 29.84513...
cubits to 30.5 cubits, so there is a range of dimensions the molten sea
could have, if the Biblical dimensions were rounded to the nearest cubit.

However, this does _not_ mean that there might not be *other* reasons,
aside from the pi question, to think that the molten sea never existed, at
least if one regards the Bible as an unreliable source in general.

However, the molten sea wasn't something implausible like a vat of molten
metal. It was simply a bathtub containing water that was made from *cast*
metal, which is where the adjective "molten" came from. So the reason for
doubt would be, I suppose, that a cast-metal object that large might be
considered beyond the technology of the time.

John Savard

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 9:49:08 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:

> As I recall, that sort of inept conversion (in the other direction)
> turned up in French to English translations of Jules Verne.

Of course, though, the English-language translations of Jules Verne's works,
until some very recent new translations, were generally infamous for being
atrocious for a number of other reasons as well; it's quite a story.

John Savard