1 edit
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowSee my profile statement: If PI was =2, this sentence would not be possible.
But all these fake stories do come from the Bill I mentioned back in the 1800s, which is actually true, I'll find a source is a bit.
Happy April Fool's Day everyone.
BTW, why couldn't we just make a number system based on PI?
Like the numbers now are X^0+Y^1+Z^3, etc. Numbers don't have to be based on powers of ten, powers of two is binary. So why not powers of PI?, So it would be X^0+Y^PI+Z^PI^2, etc. Couldn't any value derive from that?
Originally posted by sonhouseWhile you could convert things to any base, I'd imagine using any irrational number would be far more trouble than it is worth. I suppose it could be done, or at least base-pi-approximation could be done, but why would you want to, it would put your FLOPs through the roof and kill big computer calculations, confuse anyone doing it by hand and take them forever to convert, and give you no mathematical or calculational advantage. It is true that base-10 is arbitrary, but we really ought to stick to rational (and probabaly counting) numbers for our bases. And before we try to make the world count in hex, I say we first focus on getting my home country, the U.S. to use S.I. units.
See my profile statement: If PI was =2, this sentence would not be possible.
BTW, why couldn't we just make a number system based on PI?
Like the numbers now are X^0+Y^1+Z^3, etc. Numbers don't have to be based on powers of ten, powers of two is binary. So why not powers of PI?, So it would be X^0+Y^PI+Z^PI^2, etc. Couldn't any value derive from that?
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowI wonder if anything could be gained by a variable base system. Say, X^0+Y^1+Z^3, etc. It would start with the second # in base two, third # in base 3, 4th in base 4 etc. That way you would be able to have a pretty small number value for very large numbers, eh. Got to keep thinking.
While you could convert things to any base, I'd imagine using any irrational number would be far more trouble than it is worth. I suppose it could be done, or at least base-pi-approximation could be done, but why would you want to, it would put your FLOPs through the roof and kill big computer calculations, confuse anyone doing it by hand and take the ...[text shortened]... orld count in hex, I say we first focus on getting my home country, the U.S. to use S.I. units.
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowand the british. 🙂
While you could convert things to any base, I'd imagine using any irrational number would be far more trouble than it is worth. I suppose it could be done, or at least base-pi-approximation could be done, but why would you want to, it would put your FLOPs through the roof and kill big computer calculations, confuse anyone doing it by hand and take the ...[text shortened]... orld count in hex, I say we first focus on getting my home country, the U.S. to use S.I. units.
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowThe huge cast bronze basin in 1 Kings 7:23 was 10 cubits in diameter and its circumference was 30 cubits, which is mathematically inaccurate. Almost any schoolboy knows that the circumference of a circle is not the diameter times 3, but rather, the diameter times a well-known constant called "pi".
In recent years, much time and effort has gone into trying to mathematically manufacture a “more perfect” pi. Mathematicians have come up with long, confusing decimal values and bombarded society with propaganda claiming these are the “best” and only real values. They are trying to play God with pi and it is just as offensive as these scientists who t ...[text shortened]... uts to those heroic congressmen and their friends who do so much to improve this great country.
The real value of pi is 3.14159265358979, but is commonly approximated by 22/7.
This is assumed, by many, to be an "error" in the Old Testament record, and is often presented as a skeptical rebuttal to the "inerrancy" of the Scripture. How can we say that the Bible is inerrant when it contains such an obvious geometrically incorrect statement?
The common word for circumference is qav. Here, however, the spelling of the word for circumference, qaveh, adds a heh (h).
In the Hebrew Bible, the scribes did not alter any text which they felt had been copied incorrectly. Rather, they noted in the margin what they thought the written text should be. The written variation is called a kethiv; and the marginal annotation is called the qere.
To the ancient scribes, this was also regarded as a remez, a hint of something deeper. This appears to be the clue to treat the word as a mathematical formula.
The Hebrew alphabet is alphanumeric: each Hebrew letter also has a numerical value and can be used as a number.
The q has a value of 100; the v has a value of 6; thus, the normal spelling would yield a numerical value of 106. The addition of the h, with a value of 5, increases the numerical value to 111. This indicates an adjustment of the ratio 111/106, or 31.41509433962 cubits. Assuming that a cubit was 1.5 ft., this 15-foot-wide bowl would have had a circumference of 47.12388980385 feet.
This Hebrew "code" results in 47.12264150943 feet, or an error of less than 15 thousandths of an inch! (This error is 15 times better than the 22/7 estimate that we were accustomed to using in school) How did they accomplish this? This accuracy would seem to vastly exceed the precision of their instrumentation.
(Source=khouse.org)
Originally posted by epiphinehasThose crafty Joos.
The huge cast bronze basin in 1 Kings 7:23 was 10 cubits in diameter and its circumference was 30 cubits, which is mathematically inaccurate. Almost any schoolboy knows that the circumference of a circle is not the diameter times 3, but rather, the diameter times a well-known constant called "pi".
The real value of pi is 3.14159265358979, but is co ...[text shortened]... uld seem to vastly exceed the precision of their instrumentation.
(Source=khouse.org)
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehas111/106 =/= 31.4
The huge cast bronze basin in 1 Kings 7:23 was 10 cubits in diameter and its circumference was 30 cubits, which is mathematically inaccurate. Almost any schoolboy knows that the circumference of a circle is not the diameter times 3, but rather, the diameter times a well-known constant called "pi".
The real value of pi is 3.14159265358979, but is co uld seem to vastly exceed the precision of their instrumentation.
(Source=khouse.org)
[edit; I see now. 111/106 * 30 = 31.4.
You weren't very clear. (of course, the bible needed some, ummm, "re-editing" for it to make sense either)]
Originally posted by epiphinehasThanks for settling the pi argument down to fourteen places and calling it exact. To be sure at that level of fineness you could argue who would have the instrumentation to measure the difference, and for most practical purposes a value of pi correct to three or even four decimals would suffice, but to boldly declare that the real value of pi is 3.14159265358979 sort of misses a subtle transcendental point surely?
The real value of pi is 3.14159265358979, but is commonly approximated by 22/7.