It is the 120th anniversary of the passing of a bill by the House of Congress of Indiana to change the value of pi to 3.2! [Errors in the original are copied here verbatim. -Ed]
Weird as it sounds, in effect the House voted 67-0 on H.B. 246 "Introducing a new mathematical truth" on February 5th, 1897 and referred to the Senate of Indiana.
On February 2, 1897 Representative S. E. Nicholson, of Howard County, chairman of the Committee on Education, reported to the House:
"Your Committee on Education, to which was referred House Bill No. 246, entitled a bill for an act entitled an act introducing a new mathematical truth, has had same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back to the House with the recommendation that said bill do pass."
The bill was duly passed to the Senate on February 10th and read on the 11th, then referred to the Temperance Committee. On February 12 Senator Harry S. New, of Marion County, Chairman of the Committee on Temperance made the following report to the Senate:
"Your Committee on Temperance, to which was referred House Bill No. 246, introduced by Mr. Record, has had the same under consideration. and begs leave to report the same back to the Senate with the recommendation that said bill do pass."
On the afternoon of February 12 "Senator Bozeman called up House Bill No. 246. The bill was read a second time by title. Senator Hogate moved to amend the bill by striking out the enacting clause. The motion was lost. Senator Hubbell moved to postpone the further consideration of this bill indefinitely. Which motion prevailed."
The bill was never voted on, it was simply postponed following ridicule from the press. "Senator Hubbell characterized the bill as utter folly. The Senate might as well try to legislate water to run up hill as to establish mathematical truth by law. Leading papers all over the country, he said, were ridiculing the Indiana Legislature. It was outrageous that the State of Indiana should pay $250 a day to have time wasted on such frivolous matters."
A very interesting story by Will E. Edington then at DePauw University, published by the Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science. Sorry PDF only.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Pino P on Tuesday February 14 2017, @03:57PM
From the summary: "Sorry PDF only."
With (desktop versions of) Firefox and Chrome incorporating a PDF reader, what's the major drawback to viewing PDF articles in web browsers in 2017? At least a PDF is less likely to contain JavaScript code that hosts a real-time auction for the document's ad space.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 14 2017, @04:19PM
Same thing that it always was, viewing requires a viewer, that viewer has to be installed on every system that ever wants to view it, and that becomes an attack surface for malware. Adobe Reader is often still installed even if chrome or Firefox don't use it.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday February 14 2017, @04:44PM
PDF viewers are built into browsers these days. Sometimes implemented in pure JavaScript that simply creates page elements using the browser's own rendering technology to "render" the PDF into a high fidelity viewable form.
Even better, you can get PDF viewers on computers now !!!
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RamiK on Tuesday February 14 2017, @04:38PM
PDFs have fonts (optimized for paper rather then screen), paper size (that never matches the screen you're using unless you're on a tablet) and gutter width (that's just wasting space - even on tablets - as well as grows\shrinks with even\odd pages just so you won't be able to zoom in and casually flip pages).
Then again, nowadays HTMLs also have mandatory fonts and gutters as well as a metric ton of javascript so you're probably screwed either way.
compiling...
(Score: 1) by moondoctor on Tuesday February 14 2017, @05:24PM
Nah, pdfs are unbelievably flexible. You can create a master for a print job, or a screen friendly resolution independent indexed set of documentation with system fonts. It's all about who created it and what they targeted it for.
If it had been an open standard pdf would be the ultimate portable format. Adobe can be dumb. Quicktime was similar, a great format ruined by proprietary nonsense. You can put crazy things in a quicktime wrapper, text, 3d, all kinds.
(Score: 3, Informative) by datapharmer on Tuesday February 14 2017, @06:33PM
...but it is an open standard. ISO 32000. Available here: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=51502 [iso.org]
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday February 14 2017, @10:10PM
Isn't pdf basically compressed postscript?
The funny thing is that choosing postscript over html for the web would have brought embedded fonts plus typographically precise styling plus scripting ability plus printer friendliness from day one. BUT of course I prefer the medium agnostic html.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Informative) by TheRaven on Wednesday February 15 2017, @11:22AM
Isn't pdf basically compressed postscript?
Nope, not even close. PostScript is a stack-based Turing-complete language with a lot of primitives provided for drawing. PDF is a format that contains a set of objects and an index into those objects. These objects can contain drawing commands in a format that began as a subset of PostScript (removing the flow control primitives and leaving the drawing commands) but then grew to support more things than the PostScript drawing model. They can contain binary data (e.g. images and fonts), text (for searching), and even JavaScript. The dictionary format in PDF allows you to do non-destructive editing of PDFs by appending new objects and then appending a new dictionary that adds the new objects (with a new version number) and linking back to the previous dictionary. Individual objects in PDF can be compressed, so long drawing sequences (or image data) can be stored as compressed binary objects if you're optimising for file size. For faster load, there's also a variant that inserts a copy of the dictionary in the header of the file as well as at the end, so you can start drawing pages as soon as they're loaded.
Oh, the concept of pages as a searchable construct also differentiates PDF from PostScript. In PDF, each page is an object that refers to other objects for drawing. It can have a stored thumbnail, ToC entries, and so on. In PostScript, pages are drawn sequentially and then flushed to the output device. This is fine for printing, but if you want to go to page 300 in a PostScript document then you must run the entire program until the 300th showpage command. You could also have fun sending PostScript documents with infinite loops to printers - a lot of them had no timeout in the renderer and required a hard reboot to recover.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2, Informative) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday February 14 2017, @05:40PM
Soylent's html works like crap on mobile too. Fixed minimum width means I have to scroll around after zooming in.
It is the reason I rarely visit Solylent when on mobile.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by cykros on Wednesday February 15 2017, @05:54AM
Considering that Soylent was built on the archaic unmaintained Slashcode by the sheer power of rebellion against the old site, I don't think anyone should be too surprised at its inability to really render well on mobile. It'd be nice, but getting it actually working well would almost be easier with an entire ground up rebuild of the whole site than by making old slashcode play nice with the modern mobile web. Pipedot's approach might have been more suitable for the task, but it's been years now since I checked that site out. Wow, have we really been doing this for years already?
(Score: 1) by EETech1 on Wednesday February 15 2017, @09:33AM
Looks great on Opera on mobile.
Just enable text wrap, and force zoom.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday February 14 2017, @05:59PM
Yes, I completely agree about the inflexibility of PDFs.
But one major advantage with PDFs with defined layout is that they still give at least some of the "navigational" experience of traditional paper reading, which to me is really useful in finding stuff if I ever need to go back to the article/book/whatever again. Sure, text search helps too, but with a book I can generally remember, "Hey, I saw this passage on a top of a page about 2/3 of the way through next to a table" and flip through and find it almost instantly. Full-text search might also work too, but PDF gives me both options... whereas if I view something in HTML, the layout may be completely different.
And, traditional typography in a "set" form allows various layout choices that make reading pleasant. For example, there are lot of traditional "rules" about line breaking that old-school typographers used to pay attention to, like where to line-break appropriately (and where not to break) around numbers or conjunctions or initials or various things to prevent "parsing errors" when reading. Good copyeditors these days when doing a final print version of something may still pay attention to such things. And those are small things -- layout also can standardize text flow around figures, tables, etc. to ensure a good result. There's a lot more flexibility making various adjustments to leading and other layout tweaks if necessary.
And choosing a font is more than just an aesthetic choice. The characteristics of a font often also determine other layout choices to optimize readability. Sure, you could use other fonts, but in doing so, a good layout designer would probably make a lot of other small adjustments.
gutter width (that's just wasting space - even on tablets - as well as grows\shrinks with even\odd pages just so you won't be able to zoom in and casually flip pages).
PDFs that are optimized for screen use won't have gutters for binding. I completely agree that IF you're going to distribute a PDF for screen use, you should optimize it for screen viewing, not binding.
Then again, nowadays HTMLs also have mandatory fonts and gutters as well as a metric ton of javascript so you're probably screwed either way.
What's your problem with mandatory fonts? Many people care not only about the words of the text, but also its appearance. (If they didn't, MS Word would have no formatting choices at all.)
And what do you mean "gutters" in HTML? Do you just mean "margins"? Margins are important for appearance and readability -- try running text up to the very, very edge of your screen, and you'll see that generally having at least a small area for "contrast" surrounding the text can be helpful. Also, if you're talking about defined text widths, again that's a readability issue. Lots of typography stuff is based on tradition and aesthetic choices, but there have been actual studies showing that if you put too many characters per line, it makes it more difficult for your eyes to find the right line when skipping to the next one (unless you put a huge amount of leading between). That's the reason magazines and newsletters that want to cram in text put it in a multi-column format -- so you can use a smaller font and smaller margins without increasing characters per line to the point that it impacts readability.
So, I completely agree with you that it's sometimes annoying to deal with PDFs. But if I'm reading a long document, I'd actually prefer having to zoom a bit or whatever rather than dealing with all the inefficiencies of text that has no defined layout or design. And yes, you can actually accomplish some of this stuff in HTML too, but most people don't seem to bother and even when they do, there are often very "hack-like" things that end up just looking weird.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 14 2017, @08:32PM
It's a piece of shit. Good news is you don't have to use it.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday February 14 2017, @10:33PM
Sturgeon's Law also applies to computers. It's ironic that the same people who talk about how Java and Flash and PDF are heaping piles of steaming shit, will probably just be bitching about their replacements 20 years down the road anyway.
Trying to make an elegant technical solution tends to get in the way of actually getting the thing working. Sometimes you have to make compromises to get the thing out the door. See Linux vs. the GNU Project, x86 vs...various other platforms--I'm not sure, Apple Macintosh vs. Mac Lisa.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday February 14 2017, @10:35PM
Also,
Good, Cheap, Fast: Pick any two.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 15 2017, @06:29AM
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Tuesday February 14 2017, @11:09PM
It's Turing complete, isn't it?
(Score: 3, Informative) by TheRaven on Wednesday February 15 2017, @11:25AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 14 2017, @04:30PM
Even the crazies have their reasons. What was the point of this bill? TFS gives nothing.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DannyB on Tuesday February 14 2017, @04:56PM
Since no trolls ever existed before the intarweb tubes, the point could have been to make it easier to do math problems which involve PI. That would be motivated by the fact that significantly fewer students had access to electronic hand held scientific calculators in 1897 when this bill was introduced. It's a heck of a lot easier to multiply and divide by 3.2. And you get almost the same results. Close enough for people who don't really understand the utter stupidity of this.
And, you say it yourself: crazies
Consider modern legislators. The War on Science. Climate change denial. Evolution denial. If the kiddies don't get no sex edumacations then they won't not be doin' bad stuff. Deny birth control which increases the need for abortions. Deny abortions thinking that it will stop people getting abortions. (In actuality it simply increase the number of people who die from them.) For those who don't get an abortion, make sure they have no educational or vocational opportunities. Especially ensure they have no access to health care.
Now I'm not picking on all legislators, even if it may seem like I am.
And I'm not picking on a certain political party, even if it may seem like I am.
Any resemblance to any actual political parties or legislators is purely coincidental. Very few animals were harmed in the making of this post.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Grishnakh on Tuesday February 14 2017, @05:15PM
All this stuff you cite is wrong. True Republicans don't believe any of your "facts". They have alternative facts instead which show that evolution is wrong, the climate isn't changing, science is the work of the Devil, and eliminating sex education keeps kids from having sex.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday February 15 2017, @02:53AM
I do think that "alternative fact" meme has been spun out into absurdity by people on a tear. When they said it originally, I understood it to mean "other facts that tell a different story than what your narrative is pushing." As in, if there are 10 studies on the effect of sugar on human health, and 5 of them say sugar is harmful, and 5 of them say sugar is innocuous, you could easily call the findings of one side or the other, "alternative facts" to the other. That seems legitimate to me. After all, they say, "Lies, damn lies, and statistics" for a reason.
And the context for that "alternative fact" comment was the attendance at the inauguration, wasn't it? Trump was going from subway ridership, I believe, and the media was basing it on a photograph taken from the air. So one set of data was saying one thing, and the photo was saying another. Ahh, but what time was that photo taken, 4 hours before the thing was set to take place? Or was it during the oath? It is possible that the mainstream media outlets, that were on the warpath to block Trump's election to the Presidency, did something like that to de-legitimize his term from its very outset. It wouldn't be the first time the media pulled dirty tricks like that. I remember well when working on the Howard Dean campaign how a directional media mike caught Dean's roar from the stage after the Iowa caucus, when people who were actually in the room at the time couldn't really hear it over the noise of the crowd, yet the major media outlets played that selected clip over and over and over to kill Dean's insurgent campaign and clear the way for Kerry's establishment campaign.
One thing we ought to have learned by now is that we ought to toss the myth of media objectivity and "truth" on the dustheap of history. That might once have been true in the time of Edward R. Murrow, (I don't know--before my time) but it is not now. All they do now is push a narrative that advances an agenda that suits the Masters of the Universe (or, as Azuma calls them, the "lizard people").
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday February 16 2017, @03:19PM
Alternate Facts is a meme that is here to stay. And an appropriate one.
You can have your own opinions. But you don't get your own facts. The sun rises in the East, not in the West. And not somewhere in between. It can be debated whether this good or bad. It can even be debated whether congress should attempt to change where the sun rises. But the fact remains no matter what circus show happens on the floor of congress.
It set the tone perfectly for the new administration to make its first official press briefing be an easily disproven lie about the utterly insignificant issue of crowd size. As the last few weeks have shown, this really was the perfect introduction to how the new administration works and what they consider important. The meme Alternate Facts is an ideal description to enshrine this bit of stupidity for all time.
https://postimg.org/image/w0b24zott/ [postimg.org]
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by seeprime on Tuesday February 14 2017, @11:30PM
It's never the job a a legislative body to establish mathematical truth. It's an impossible task that these fools in Indiana should have avoided. Concerning ease of calculation, using 3.14 isn't hard to do by hand. It requires thinking, knowing how to carry over values, and paying attention. At work we used slide rules to do these calculations until the early-mid 1970's, when calculators became available for under $100. No one should make education simple. The result is simple minds.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday February 15 2017, @02:55AM
Yes but the discursive assault on climate science has whet their appetite to do more of the same. Any science or fact or finding can be discredited if it threatens the profits of the 1%.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Tuesday February 14 2017, @06:02PM
Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
Politicians know a little bit of math, and don't realize how much they don't know.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday February 14 2017, @06:16PM
I saw a point. It was a money grab. But it was so badly done it was comical. The "discoverer" would have leverage for charging other states for the use of his "fact", because the work was copyrighted!
It may be that the Indiana House approved the motion for political horse trading purposes, and did it in a rush, didn't pause long enough to learn of the absurdity.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday February 14 2017, @08:37PM
IIUC, the history is all wrong. As *I* understand it
A math professor(teacher?) wanted the state to make his book the official text (and to show how stupid legislators are) so he got a bill submitted that would, in return for the right to freely use his book, (a huge bunch of complicated text that was never explained to me). This effect of this would have been to make pi equal to 3.? (perhaps it *was* 3.2). This was reported out of one house, but the other didn't understand it, so it got referred to the committee on swamps, and died there.
Not quite the same story, but it's the one I believe to be true.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday February 14 2017, @04:30PM
The goal of these guys was of course to set the value of pi to match the biblical truth rather than observational evidence. However, somebody did the math [purplemath.com], and it turns out the Bible doesn't say what the religious nutjobs said it says: The Biblical value of pi, once you factor in the thickness of the bowl in question, is within 0.002 of the correct number.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Tuesday February 14 2017, @04:37PM
The goal of these guys was of course to set the value of pi to match the biblical truth rather than observational evidence
I didn't see that in the PDF at all. It sounds like some conman was trying to play a prank and get the legislature to pass something ridiculous. The incentive he offered was that his "discovery" was patented, but he would let the state of Indiana use it royalty free in their school textbooks if they would pass a law stating that his "discovery" was truth.
The article also indicated that some of the sources he started with had errors like errors in dates so he had to do a lot of digging to find out what really happened. Do you have any source to substantiate that the motivation behind this law was religious?
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Interesting) by gauauu on Tuesday February 14 2017, @04:40PM
I always believed that as well, but as far as I can tell, that's not true. It seems to be based on some wacky math by a Indiana mathematician, who then wanted to get royalties on his new "correct" version of pi, but told Indiana that they wouldn't have to pay royalties to him if they enacted this as law.
See this page for some more information: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill [rationalwiki.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 14 2017, @05:15PM
And the biblical value if you don't factor in the thickness of the bowl is 3.0, which is even farther from 3.2 than the real value of pi. So if your assumption were right, they would have failed even more spectacularly.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday February 14 2017, @08:33PM
The goal of these guys was of course to set the value of pi to match the biblical truth rather than observational evidence.
Apparently that's one of the fake ones. [snopes.com]
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday February 14 2017, @11:19PM
From your link (emphasis mine):
Though the claim about the Alabama state legislature is pure nonsense, it is similar to an event that happened more than a century ago. In 1897 the Indiana House of Representatives unanimously passed a measure (House Bill no. 246, introduced by Rep. Taylor I. Record) regarding the calculation of the area of a circle that assigned various values to pi other than 3.14. (The bill died in the state Senate.)
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday February 14 2017, @11:25PM
Ah, I see now. The falseness in the claim is not just that the proposal took place in Alabama, but that it was based upon the Bible.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday February 15 2017, @04:40PM
Thank you, I stand corrected.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 14 2017, @04:44PM
Neither does the market; hence the immortal black market.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Tuesday February 14 2017, @04:57PM
Lets see if I get this. Some 120 years ago Dr. Goodwin (medical doctor, not mathematician) claims to have come up with a "solution" for squaring a circle but only if we make PI equal to 3.2? If the Indiana legislature would just agree with him and redefine PI to said number he would let them use his copyrighted method for free.
Sure it was a pre-computer age and it might have been tempting to cut down on the required amount of calculations - calculating with squares is somewhat easier then circles if you do it by hand. One is left wondering that if this was accepted what would have been broken - everything else that does depending on PI actually being the ratio of a circles circumference to its diameter and not 3.2.
Also wasn't politicians back them a bit more educated in the classics such as Euclids Elements and his axiomatic theories then they are today -- they seem to mostly be made up of smiling idiots and lawyers these days. No wonder they laughed.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday February 14 2017, @05:19PM
I can't imagine that much would have been "broken". Indiana has never been a really huge industrial state; it's mostly agriculture.
As for politicians being educated more back then, I do believe you may be right about that. In fact, it seems like most people back then (at least those with an education, which back in those days would have been a subset of society) had a far better education than "educated" people today do.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Tuesday February 14 2017, @06:07PM
"Better"? Many probably received a "classical education", largely comprising studying latin and ancient greek.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday February 14 2017, @06:20PM
That historically came with a side dish of geometry... Back in the day they learned more geometry than our kids now, which makes the whole situation even more troll-ish.
I'm pretty sure the whole situation happened because of some early morse code version of 4chan, obviously /hc/ and /s/ were not as much fun over morse code so 1800s /b/ got way the hell out of control and managed to get a state legislature to believe them. I'm about 95% sure it was the same personalities and motivations a century ago, human nature doesn't change that much.
Sent in morse code by a bunch of anons "Say old chap I can't get a trollop for fornicational purposes at the saloon so let us troll the state legislature in our state of non-marital activities" "Sir OP I daresay you are correct on this fine day, I shall send 5000000 telegrams to the legislature, I live in my mom's barn basement so I cannot take an iron horse to the proceeding yet my telegrams will oil lamp (gaslight) them into thinking its widely supported" thats... thats ... about as much steampunk as I can handle in one sitting, now to wash my fingers out with soap...
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Tuesday February 14 2017, @06:54PM
My late father received a classical education, and geometry did not feature in it.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday February 14 2017, @07:08PM
Education is like religion in that there's a lot of fight between sects over "we gonna do what they do but without astronomy" or "we gonna copy them with the addition of architecture".
quadrivium lists geometry by name, so if he's more than 2000 or so years old I'm thinking there's merely a misunderstanding .... Although I suppose there are a lot of things running under the rather generic name of "classical education".
I bet some "great books" curricula tend away from geometry which is probably hard to learn from a book for most people. So there's that whole blur where classical and great books are both gonna read Plutarch but there ARE differences.
What is really classical education and what the law makers learned as kids in 1800 might have nothing to do with each other, of course.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 14 2017, @10:30PM
Made me chuckle.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday February 15 2017, @03:01AM
That kind of place sounds nice. Living in Chicago the Indiana I always saw were the derelict factories, tailing ponds & steelworks of US Steel. Sort of like a more hideous and depressing version of New Jersey.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday February 14 2017, @05:50PM
Not to mention, you can't even round pi to 3.2 in a way that makes sense in the first place. 3.14159 rounded to the closest tenth is 3.1.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 14 2017, @06:11PM
Yeah, but 3.2 is even. When in doubt, always round to even numbers: in the long run you'll be rounding up and down about the same amount (since there are approximately as many even as odd numbers - we could of course also chose to always round to odd, but even numbers have better divisibility so even it is.) so that eventually evens out. 3.2 obviously is the best value for pi: otherwise we would have to round up all the way to 4, which would be ridiculous.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday February 14 2017, @06:22PM
Yeah, but 3.2 is even. When in doubt, always round to some completely arbitrary technobabble
Clear as mud, thanks. I was rather surprised one time when I was writing something using Visual Studio and apparently their math library's rounding methods are "towards zero" or "away from zero." Hmmm.
Plus the reasoning is allegedly to make circling the square work, so they might as well use perpetual motion to justify the change in the first place :P
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday February 14 2017, @07:18PM
If the Indiana legislature would just agree with him and redefine PI to said number he would let them use his copyrighted method for free.
I just posted a longer comment about this, but I don't think he was actually trying to redefine Pi, since his published paper on the subject actually uses various values for Pi (sometimes 3.2, sometimes 4). What he was actually trying to accomplish was simply squaring the circle, effectively using approximations.
Also wasn't politicians back them a bit more educated in the classics such as Euclids Elements and his axiomatic theories then they are today -- they seem to mostly be made up of smiling idiots and lawyers these days. No wonder they laughed.
I suspect in this case it was their "classical education" that allowed this bill to get so far. They would have likely all been familiar with the "squaring the circle" problem that had been unsolved since antiquity. But they probably didn't know much more about it other than what their geometry teacher told them in school, i.e., it was a classic unsolved problem. Now you have this guy who shows up and says, "I published a solution to this in a mathematical journal." If he had comes straight out and said, "I think Pi is 3.2 and sometimes 4," I doubt his bill would have gotten far. Instead, he played off the fact that he could solve a previously unsolved issue that some of them may have heard of.
As to whether they actually knew anything about it, the linked PDF says no:
Although the bill was not acted on favorably no one who spoke against it intimated that there was anything wrong with the theories it advances. All of the senators who spoke on the bill admitted that they were ignorant of the merits of the proposition. It was simply regarded as not being a subject for legislation.
Sounds like mostly they were amused that their House colleagues had been hoodwinked, and even though they didn't know any better (except that a math prof had told them it was BS), they had a good laugh about the fact they were being asked to legislate on mathematical proofs in the first place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 14 2017, @04:58PM
>What was the point of this bill? TFS gives nothing.
There has always been a controversy concerning the value of pi, strange as it may seem.
This guy provides a summary of the situation.
http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html [milesmathis.com]
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday February 14 2017, @05:15PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 14 2017, @05:15PM
It's an affront to Freedom of Free Freedom to arbitrarily dictate one so-called "mainstream" value of pi to our children. Schools need to show the range of opinions and teach that the value of pi is only a theory that has proponents and opponents. The Bible for instance gives a different value of pi than so-called "scientists" who suck on the teat of vast government and who will say anything to get their precious grant money and offend Righteous Folks like me and you. I mean c'mon, flying lizards?! Are they morans?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 14 2017, @05:16PM
Make them use tires designed with that value.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday February 14 2017, @08:41PM
Probably wouldn't make any difference to tires. They deform to the road anyway.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday February 14 2017, @10:38PM
Using a value of 3 for Pi greatly simplifies the design of your mail sorting machine, according to Bloody Stupid Johnson.
(Score: -1, Troll) by jmorris on Tuesday February 14 2017, @05:38PM
Politicians still attempt to legislate scientific results. And while sanity prevailed in the case discussed above, insanity more often than not wins the day now.
Unless you are willing to ignore all ALL of the evidence of funny business in the climatology world the science is NOT settled. And anyone who even uses the 97% argument or utters the word "consensus" is admitting it is politics and not science at work. Meanwhile the politicians are legislating as if the matter were as clear as Newton's Laws of Motion. (Which in the end were themselves only "mostly correct.")
Governments mandate the teaching of the Theory of Evolution with the proviso that man is exempt from it. Somehow. No you can't being God into it as a solution to the problem either, it just IS and you must accept it. The science is settled... by politicians. Well ok, it might be acceptable to notice human populations differ physically but you better draw the line at the neck because any heretic who goes there will be burned at the stake.
Biology is problematic. The currently prescribed Truth is that reality is socially derived function when it comes to matters of gender. No, you can't use anatomy or genetics to question this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 14 2017, @10:37PM
jmorris, you just overloaded my irony meter. You owe me a new one.
(Score: 3, Touché) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday February 14 2017, @05:39PM
change the value of pi to 3.2!
A story about maths is perhaps not the best to be throwing around exclamation marks.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday February 14 2017, @05:42PM
*math
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 14 2017, @07:09PM
*maths
FTFY.
(Score: 2) by gawdonblue on Tuesday February 14 2017, @09:24PM
"Math" is the shortened version of singular noun mathematic, while "maths" is the diminutive equivalent of the plural mathematics. The word derives from the Latin mathematica (plural) - things which are learned.
If you're discussing a single mathematical idea then you might refer to the "math", however anywhere you would use "mathematics" then you should use "maths" when shortening it.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday February 14 2017, @10:24PM
Some words just don't have a singular/plural form. For example, would you consider "algebra" singular or plural? You do algebras? You solve an algeber?
Math isn't plural, it's a collective noun or something. "Mathematic" isn't a word; the adjective form is mathematical.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by gawdonblue on Wednesday February 15 2017, @07:49AM
"Mathematics" is indeed the plural form, and replaced the previous (singular) term "mathematic" in common usage sometime in the 16th Century. But don't take my word for it - google "define mathematics" for meaning and etymology.
Not sure about whether "algebra" is singular, plural, collective, or otherwise. It is, of course, not relevant to whether "mathematics" is or is not plural.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday February 14 2017, @06:56PM
There's nothing in this bill that actually SETS a value for Pi by legislative fiat. In fact, I'm pretty sure the author of this BS wasn't even trying to propose a new value for Pi in general. The closest it comes is stating a finding:
Furthermore, it has revealed the ratio of the chord and arc of ninety degrees, which is as seven to eight, and also the ratio of the diagonal and one side of a square which is as ten to seven, disclosing the fourth important fact, that the ratio of the diameter and circumference is as five-fourths to four...
And if you sort out what that means, it does have an implication that Pi=3.2. But that's not the point of the bill at all, which is actually to square the circle [wikipedia.org] with compass and straightedge. This is made clear in Section 2:
By taking the quadrant of the circle's circumference for the linear unit, we fulfill the requirements of both quadrature and rectification of the circle's circumference.
In other words, some moron (Edward Goodwin, M.D.) was adjusting the size of the circle he was supposed to be squaring in order to make the math work out. This was a classic geometrical problem known since antiquity, and he decided that he could pass off an approximation of it as a "solution" which he seemed to want to copyright/patent whatever. The true purpose of the bill is made abundantly clear in the final section:
Section 3: In further proof of the value of the author's proposed contribution to education and offered as a gift to the State of Indiana, is the fact of his solutions of the trisection of the angle, duplication of the cube and quadrature of the circle having been already accepted as contributions to science by the American Mathematical Monthly, the leading exponent of mathematical thought in this country. And be it remembered that these noted problems had been long since given up by scientific bodies as insolvable mysteries and above man's ability to comprehend.
Squaring the circle (or quadrature), the doubling of the cube, and trisection of the angle, are basically THE THREE ancient problems which were known not to be solved by using only compass and straightedge. These are things that any educated man in the 19th century would know from studying Euclidean geometry at school. What this dude was trying to do was pass off his "solutions" to such standard problems as if they were fact.
Bizarrely, in the process of solving this ancient problem of squaring the circle, he claimed the value of Pi necessary to make his "proof" work was actually a better value. Here's a link [purdue.edu] to his publication in the American Mathematical Monthly that explains the proof in more detail. Basically, he directly acknowledges that his ratio for Pi (5/4:4, or 3.2) "represents the area of the circle to be more than the orthodox ratio, yet the ratio (3.1416) represents the area of the circle whose circumference equals 4 [as] 2% greater than the finite ratio (5/4:4)..."
He then goes on to compare ratios using his computational method (i.e., 1:3.2, and 1.25:4) with ratios using the traditional value of Pi (1:3.1416, and 1.2732:4), and he concludes through cross-multiplication in these proportions that 3.2*1.25 does indeed equal 4, but 3.1416*1.2732 does not precisely equal 4. (It actually equals 3.99988...) Basically, his "proof" amounts to "I'm using a defined rational number," whereas his approximate values for the real value of Pi don't seem to match up perfectly. Or, to put it another way, he assumed he had actually "squared the circle" using his proportion, and then decided it must be a better value for Pi, since his proportions look nicer.
Moreover, that's not even the only value he assumes for Pi in the paper. Elsewhere, he states:
These two ratios show the numerical relation of diameter to circumference to be as 1:4.
That is, Pi=4. And later:
We are now able to get the true and finite dimensions of a circle by the exact ratio 5/4: 4, and have simply to divide the circumference by 4 and square the quotient to compute the area.
Here we have a circumference formula that appears to imply Pi=3.2 juxtaposed directly with an area formula that implies Pi=4. Why? Because he wasn't trying to redefine Pi. As is evidence by looking at the way he sets up these formulas: "These properties of the ratio of the square apply to the circle without an exception, as is further sustained by the following formula to express the numerical measure of both circle and square." In other words, we keep adjusting ratios wherever necessary so that the math works out for both the square and the circle... but he ONLY seems to be talking about this specific problem.
These various supposed new values for Pi are merely the consequence of this supposed "solution" of a classic problem from antiquity, and that presumably is what got the attention of lawmakers. If he had just wandered in and said, "I propose we make Pi = 3.2 or maybe 4," he would have been immediately laughed out of the room. Instead, he was proposing a solution method to the quadrature problem, which happened to involve stretching or compressing the Pi ratio in various ways to make a square appear to conform to the measurements of a circle.
(Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday February 14 2017, @07:34PM
By the way, the only reference I seem to see to this being about Pi is in Prof. Waldo's account (see the end of the PDF):
An ex-teacher from the eastern part of the state was saying: "The case is perfectly simple. If we pass this bill which establishes a new and correct value for pi, the author offers to our state without cost the use of his discovery and its free publication in our school text books, while everyone else must pay him a royalty.”
Except the bill doesn't clearly define a value for Pi in no uncertain terms. Its title/subject is repeatedly mentioned as "squaring a circle." And newspaper accounts listed in the PDF don't imply anything about Pi... instead:
The bill telling how to square a circle, Introduced in the House by Mr. Record is not intended to be a hoax. Mr. Record knows nothing of the bill with the exception that he introduced it by request of Dr. Edwin Goodwin of Posey County, who is the author of the demonstration. The latter and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Geeting believe that it is the long-sought solution of the problem, and they are seeking to have it adopted by the legislature. Dr. Goodwin, the author, is a mathematician of note. He has it copyrighted and his proposition is that if the legislature will indorse the solution he will allow the state to use the demonstration in its textbooks free of charge.
It doesn't make sense that Dr. Goodwin, no matter how much of a moron he was, believed that he could "copyright" a value of a mathematical constant. He didn't care about Pi. He wanted the credit for "squaring the circle." I suspect what happened here is Prof. Waldo -- who was the mathematician who ultimately debunked the bill -- realized that the "solution" only worked by redefining Pi, and he pointed that out to various Senators, etc. (And perhaps misremembered that as what a teacher told him, or maybe the teacher had realized the implications and said that to him directly.) But I don't see any clear evidence that the bill or its author actually intended to redefine Pi... or how it would even make any sense to license a new mathematical value to schools.
But I do understand how some moron could think that he could copyright the text of a mathematical proof and seek to have it promoted in school textbooks, which appears to be what this bill was actually about.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday February 14 2017, @11:15PM
So it was patented, and he was giving it as a gift to the legislature and schools?
Sounds like he was trying to create a market for his product, fill it with people trained to use his product, and then a commercial market that has to pay licensing fees to use his product.
Would have been quite a thing to pull off, but this was 1897. Governments giving away vast amounts of wealth to unethical greedy people was standard operating procedure. This just sounded far stupider than giving away vast amounts of the public wealth to create robber barons of rail, coal, etc.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by iWantToKeepAnon on Wednesday February 15 2017, @10:32PM
"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy