On 12/09/2022 09.18, Bice wrote:
> 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?

Interesting. My copy of _Riverworld_ has feet, but my copies of
all of the sequels have the klunky conversion to meters. I'd
always assumed that PJF had decided to "go metric" in some
misguided way.

--
Michael F. Stemper
Galatians 3:28

In article <631f3f03.2860022890@localhost>,
eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net (Bice) wrote:

> 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?
>

I have a vague recollection that Farmer did the conversion as part of
preparing the final draft to be sent to the original publisher. Anybody
willing to check copies of the original USA editions?

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
�-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On 9/12/2022 9:10 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> 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.

That would have required thinking about it, something likely highly
discouraged in the middle management type told to have it done. :)

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 12:01:23 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 11:13:46 -0700 (PDT), 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.
> 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.

You're on the internet. How lazy do you have to be not to check, especially
when the reference is handed to you?

1 Kings, 7:23: He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring
ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits
to measure around it.

2 Chronicles 4:2: He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape,
measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line
of thirty cubits to measure around it.

NIV version.

pt

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 2:13:48 PM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie 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.

I was taught that the Egyptians used 22/7, though later than came under dispute.

The Babylonians used 25/8 or 3.125 and one Egyptian document uses a fraction equal to 3.26.

22/7 is associated with Archimedes and the polynomial method, as Paul Person notes elsewhere. This was, though, an upper bound. A quick search tells me is lower bound was 223/71. The same search says that
Ptolemy managed 3.146 in the mid second century.

Asimov wrote an essay on this. Apparently someone calculated it to 750 digits by the series
method in the pre-computer age, but erred somewhere around 550.

William Hyde

On 9/12/2022 1:14 PM, William Hyde wrote:
> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 2:13:48 PM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie 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.
>
>
> I was taught that the Egyptians used 22/7, though later than came under dispute.
>
> The Babylonians used 25/8 or 3.125 and one Egyptian document uses a fraction equal to 3.26.
>
> 22/7 is associated with Archimedes and the polynomial method, as Paul Person notes elsewhere. This was, though, an upper bound. A quick search tells me is lower bound was 223/71. The same search says that
> Ptolemy managed 3.146 in the mid second century.
>
> Asimov wrote an essay on this. Apparently someone calculated it to 750 digits by the series
> method in the pre-computer age, but erred somewhere around 550.
>
Close enough for government work. :D

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 6:14:21 AM UTC+10, William Hyde wrote:
> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 2:13:48 PM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie 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.
> I was taught that the Egyptians used 22/7, though later than came under dispute.
>
> The Babylonians used 25/8 or 3.125 and one Egyptian document uses a fraction equal to 3.26.
>
> 22/7 is associated with Archimedes and the polynomial method, as Paul Person notes elsewhere. This was, though, an upper bound. A quick search tells me is lower bound was 223/71. The same search says that
> Ptolemy managed 3.146 in the mid second century.
>
> Asimov wrote an essay on this.

"A Piece of Pi". Available, possibly illegally, at:

https://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/asimov-on-numbers.pdf

Page 87.

-Moriarty

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:32:46 PM UTC-6, Moriarty wrote:

> "A Piece of Pi". Available,

For those more concerned about legalities, although this would
also be a violation of copyright, there's this URL:

https://archive.org/details/Fantasy_Science_Fiction_v018n05_1960-05_PDF/mode/2up

....page 67.

This is the original issue of Fantasy and Science Fiction in which the essay first appeared.

Apparently, the archiving of issues of these old magazines is being tolerated.

John Savard

On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 09:48:30 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>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.

And on how large a "cubit" was.

Which probably varied over time.
--
"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 4:40:55 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> 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.
>

Yep - but Lambert proved pi is irrational in 1761.
- Tony, who coincidentally has this fact on p.3 of his notes for tomorrow

On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 12:59:26 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 12:01:23 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 11:13:46 -0700 (PDT), 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.
>> 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.
>
>You're on the internet. How lazy do you have to be not to check, especially
>when the reference is handed to you?
>
>1 Kings, 7:23: He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring
>ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits
>to measure around it.
>
>2 Chronicles 4:2: He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape,
>measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line
>of thirty cubits to measure around it.
>
>NIV version.

Confirmed with RSV.

I'll try to keep this in mind in the future.

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

Now, if it had said "10 cubits from rim to rim ... a line of 20
cubits" or "40 cubits", then those claiming that this showed that the
Bible's value of pi (being then claimed to be 2 or 4) would have a
point. But here their point fails on /mathematical/ grounds: they are
claiming a value to be wrong which is, in fact, correct.
--
"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 2022-09-10 13:21, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
> news:rHxFL6.10Hp@kithrup.com:
>
>> In article <tfedo5$v1mr$2@dont-email.me>,
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> On 9/8/2022 6:59 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>> In article <XnsAF0C9152CF814taustingmail@85.12.62.232>,
>>>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Jan 6 was some hillbillies who had a party that got out of
>>>>> hand, and did very minimal damage to anybody.
>>>>
>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>> Dead is "minimal damage"?
>>>
>>> Did Dorothy never mention Terry Austin to you?
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> She did. Plus back when I was posting, he was active then. So
>> no real surprises. I was just curious to see if he was willing
>> to define "minimal damage" to include deaths.
>>
> Compared to the number of murders committed by Antifa/BLM, yes, I
> am.

"Murders"?

You've got proof of that, do you?

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:23:44 AM UTC-6, Tony Nance wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:40:55 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 11:49:01 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

> > > Pi has been *proven* to be transcendental, and, hence, irrational.
> >
> > Carl Louis Ferdinand von Lindemann, 1882.
> >
> Yep - but Lambert proved pi is irrational in 1761.

You're absolutely right. I didn't want to get into *too* much detail.

John Savard

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:35:42 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:

> However, 3 is still the correct value of pi to 0 decimal places.
>
> Now, if it had said "10 cubits from rim to rim ... a line of 20
> cubits" or "40 cubits", then those claiming that this showed that the
> Bible's value of pi (being then claimed to be 2 or 4) would have a
> point. But here their point fails on /mathematical/ grounds: they are
> claiming a value to be wrong which is, in fact, correct.

30 cubits isn't the same as 31 cubits. Now, if the Bible had said that a
line of 3 * 10^1 cubits did compass it round about, one *could* conclude
the value was provided to an accuracy of one significant digit.

John Savard

On 9/13/2022 9:14 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 09:48:30 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> And on how large a "cubit" was.
>
From your elbow to the tips of your fingers, of course!

> Which probably varied over time.

And from person to person.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 13/09/2022 15.47, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 9/13/2022 9:14 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 09:48:30 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>>> 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.
>>
>> And on how large a "cubit" was.
>>
> From your elbow to the tips of your fingers, of course!
>
>> Which probably varied over time.
>
> And from person to person.

And, of course, with the speed they're moving.

--
Michael F. Stemper
Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be.

On 9/13/2022 1:56 PM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 13/09/2022 15.47, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 9/13/2022 9:14 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 09:48:30 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> And on how large a "cubit" was.
>>>
>>  From your elbow to the tips of your fingers, of course!
>>
>>> Which probably varied over time.
>>
>> And from person to person.
>
> And, of course, with the speed they're moving.
>
Relativistic quantum cubits.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 11:13:30 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:35:42 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> However, 3 is still the correct value of pi to 0 decimal places.
>>
>> Now, if it had said "10 cubits from rim to rim ... a line of 20
>> cubits" or "40 cubits", then those claiming that this showed that the
>> Bible's value of pi (being then claimed to be 2 or 4) would have a
>> point. But here their point fails on /mathematical/ grounds: they are
>> claiming a value to be wrong which is, in fact, correct.
>
>30 cubits isn't the same as 31 cubits. Now, if the Bible had said that a
>line of 3 * 10^1 cubits did compass it round about, one *could* conclude
>the value was provided to an accuracy of one significant digit.

Sadly, the claim is that 30/10 = 3 (which, as such, is correct) and
that, therefore, the Bible defines pi as 3 -- and that that is wrong.
But it is /not/ wrong -- 3 is the value of pi to 0 decimal places.

Now, if you want to shift the argument to how accurate the
measurements were ... or how they were made ... but I believe you said
you have already gone over that online.

20 years ago, I was on a newsgroup where neophyte atheists appears
regularly, all of them going through the same "proofs" in the same
order. This led me to hypothesize the existence of a "Little Grey
Book" that was given to neophyte atheists and which they were all
following.

But that was before I reached the point in /The Story of Civilization/
(series title, Durant) discussing the philosophes and other earlie
atheists, where I found the same arguments being cited. So,
apparently, they were, if nothing else, a traditional part of atheism,
hallowed (so to speak) by their antiquity. AFAIK, there has not been a
/new/ argument raised since the 18th century. The level of discourse
has declined, and the level of vituperation has risen, but the content
remains very tradtional.
--
"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 Tue, 13 Sep 2022 18:26:43 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 9/13/2022 1:56 PM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>> On 13/09/2022 15.47, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> On 9/13/2022 9:14 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 09:48:30 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> And on how large a "cubit" was.
>>>>
>>>  From your elbow to the tips of your fingers, of course!
>>>
>>>> Which probably varied over time.
>>>
>>> And from person to person.
>>
>> And, of course, with the speed they're moving.
>>
>Relativistic quantum cubits.

Which may explain why the NEB gave "1 to 2 feet" as their length.

But, so far as relativistic effects go, probably not.

And, BTW, would itbe General Relativity that was perhaps being
referred to? Not Quantum Mechanics?
--
"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 14/09/2022 11.19, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 11:13:30 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> 20 years ago, I was on a newsgroup where neophyte atheists appears
> regularly, all of them going through the same "proofs" in the same
> order. This led me to hypothesize the existence of a "Little Grey
> Book" that was given to neophyte atheists and which they were all
> following.
>
> But that was before I reached the point in /The Story of Civilization/
> (series title, Durant) discussing the philosophes and other earlie
> atheists, where I found the same arguments being cited. So,
> apparently, they were, if nothing else, a traditional part of atheism,
> hallowed (so to speak) by their antiquity. AFAIK, there has not been a
> /new/ argument raised since the 18th century. The level of discourse
> has declined, and the level of vituperation has risen, but the content
> remains very tradtional.

As a Catholic, I very much approve of hallowed traditions.

--
Michael F. Stemper
This post contains greater than 95% post-consumer bytes by weight.

On 9/14/2022 9:22 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 18:26:43 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/13/2022 1:56 PM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>> On 13/09/2022 15.47, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>> On 9/13/2022 9:14 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 09:48:30 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> And on how large a "cubit" was.
>>>>>
>>>>  From your elbow to the tips of your fingers, of course!
>>>>
>>>>> Which probably varied over time.
>>>>
>>>> And from person to person.
>>>
>>> And, of course, with the speed they're moving.
>>>
>> Relativistic quantum cubits.
>
> Which may explain why the NEB gave "1 to 2 feet" as their length.
>
> But, so far as relativistic effects go, probably not.
>
> And, BTW, would itbe General Relativity that was perhaps being
> referred to? Not Quantum Mechanics?

That's why I included both, to cover my bases.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Tuesday, 13 September 2022 at 19:13:33 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:35:42 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>
> > However, 3 is still the correct value of pi to 0 decimal places.
> >
> > Now, if it had said "10 cubits from rim to rim ... a line of 20
> > cubits" or "40 cubits", then those claiming that this showed that the
> > Bible's value of pi (being then claimed to be 2 or 4) would have a
> > point. But here their point fails on /mathematical/ grounds: they are
> > claiming a value to be wrong which is, in fact, correct.
> 30 cubits isn't the same as 31 cubits. Now, if the Bible had said that a
> line of 3 * 10^1 cubits did compass it round about, one *could* conclude
> the value was provided to an accuracy of one significant digit.

30 cubits wouldn't reach. 31 cubits wouldn't reach.

Meanwhile, in this debate, we've been asked to believe
that 9.5 cubits was close enough to accurate for God's
sacred temple. I think it would go like _Raiders of
the Lost Ark_, the first time King Solomon took out the
15 Commandments to wash them, and they didn't fit.

On the other hand, it could be oval. Some translations
say round, some say circular, which invites the challenge.

Did the ancient Hebrews know what one-tenth is (0.1)?
Yep. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe>

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 10:19:59 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 11:13:30 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:35:42 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:

> >> However, 3 is still the correct value of pi to 0 decimal places.

> >> Now, if it had said "10 cubits from rim to rim ... a line of 20
> >> cubits" or "40 cubits", then those claiming that this showed that the
> >> Bible's value of pi (being then claimed to be 2 or 4) would have a
> >> point. But here their point fails on /mathematical/ grounds: they are
> >> claiming a value to be wrong which is, in fact, correct.

> >30 cubits isn't the same as 31 cubits. Now, if the Bible had said that a
> >line of 3 * 10^1 cubits did compass it round about, one *could* conclude
> >the value was provided to an accuracy of one significant digit.
> Sadly, the claim is that 30/10 = 3 (which, as such, is correct) and
> that, therefore, the Bible defines pi as 3 -- and that that is wrong.
> But it is /not/ wrong -- 3 is the value of pi to 0 decimal places.

> Now, if you want to shift the argument to how accurate the
> measurements were ... or how they were made ... but I believe you said
> you have already gone over that online.

Yes, and I agree that the Biblical passage in question is not a disproof
of the Bible. But _not_ because 3 is pi correct to a certain level of precision.
Instead, because we can assume that 10 and 30 are each correct only to
the nearest whole cubit... and so, the diameter of the "molten sea" must be
less than 10 cubits, while still being more than 9.5 cubits. If the diameter
had been a full 10 cubits, then the figure of 30 cubits for its circumference
would be _wrong_.

So my position is that one has to demand a certain standard of accuracy of
the Bible to view it as God's Word - and, in this instance, it _has_ met that
standard, even if that is not immediately obvious. But your argument seems
to be that a lesser standard of accuracy is permissible, and it is with that
which I disagree.

John Savard

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 10:19:59 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:

> 20 years ago, I was on a newsgroup where neophyte atheists appears
> regularly, all of them going through the same "proofs" in the same
> order. This led me to hypothesize the existence of a "Little Grey
> Book" that was given to neophyte atheists and which they were all
> following.

I don't have a "little grey book", but indeed, I'm familiar with the most
common arguments. The most _obvious_ disproof of Biblical literalism
that, unlike the pi=3 one, has not been disproven is...

Matthew 1:21-23

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for
he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it
might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and
they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God
with us.

Isaiah 7:10-16

And the LORD spoke again unto Ahaz, saying: 'Ask thee a sign of the
LORD thy God: ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.' But
Ahaz said: 'I will not ask, neither will I try the LORD.' And he said: 'Hear
ye now, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, that ye
will weary my God also? Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a
sign: behold, the young woman shall concieve, and bear a son, and shall
call his name Immanuel. Curd and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth
to refuse the evil, and choose the good. Yea, before the child shall know
to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou
hast a horror of shall be forsaken.

Now, one can make up stories about how the _actual_ event being discussed
in Isaiah is a "type" of Jesus, but claiming that the inaccurate Septuagint is
not recognized as an inaccurate translation of God's Word by an omniscient
God is absurd.

This, however, does _not_ disprove the existence of God. Anglicans may
continue to be Anglicans, and Presbyterians may continue to be Presbyterians.
It is only the kind of extreme biblical literalism that leads to things like
Young Earth Creationism, which is already rejected as false by most Christians
that it disproves.

It doesn't even disprove the virgin birth. Only a certain approach to the accuracy
of the Bible.

John Savard

Among the things Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 September 2022 at 19:13:33 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:35:42 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> >
> > > However, 3 is still the correct value of pi to 0 decimal places.
> > >
> > > Now, if it had said "10 cubits from rim to rim ... a line of 20
> > > cubits" or "40 cubits", then those claiming that this showed that the
> > > Bible's value of pi (being then claimed to be 2 or 4) would have a
> > > point. But here their point fails on /mathematical/ grounds: they are
> > > claiming a value to be wrong which is, in fact, correct.
>
> Meanwhile, in this debate, we've been asked to believe
> that 9.5 cubits was close enough to accurate for God's
> sacred temple. I think it would go like _Raiders of
> the Lost Ark_, the first time King Solomon took out the
> 15 Commandments to wash them, and they didn't fit.
....
> Did the ancient Hebrews know what one-tenth is (0.1)?
> Yep. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe>

Did they measure in fractions of their unit, though? I haven't paid attention to the original material, but my impression is that instead of saying "5.3 cubits," they'd go to a smaller unit, like, "5 cubits and a span." Like "a bushel and a peck." Additional complications when the smaller unit into the bigger unit, like months into a year, doesn't go evenly.

Maybe this was back when the measurement guy was sent around the vat to measure by hand... er, arm. ("No! Don't inscribe! Circumscribe!" "What?") Before he found it was easier to send his assistant with a rope and bring it back for him to measure sitting down. Or years later, when he kept the marked-out measurements on the rope and used it to measure things smaller than it.

--
-Jack