🚀 go-pugleaf

Jonathan Cunningham (jlc@sofluc.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <5gmqsn$bs8@milo.vcn.bc.ca>,
: mgibson@vcn.bc.ca (Mark Gibson) wrote:

: >Martin Ward (martin@ward-hull.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: >: Pi day
: >: 
: >: 
: (snip)
: >
: >3.14159265379 is a closer approximation to pi that I usually use. But that

: Since I haven't seen anyone else say it yet, if you are going to use a 12
: digit approximation, how about using 3.14159265359 which is an even better
: approximation than the one you use :-).

: I find "3" is accurate enough for many purposes, though.

: Be careful if you are determining pi by measuring the ratio of the
: circumference of a circle to its diameter: a one tonne weight in a 10 metre
: diameter circle will affect the value of pi in about the 24th or 25th
: decimal place (general relativity and curvature of space-time etc.). If
: you wish to try this, it's worth knowing that the correct value of
: pi should be around 3.14159265358979323846264338 in flat space, although
: the last two or three digits will be different with the one tonne weight
: in place. :-).

: Jonathan

(thinks) (thinks) (thinks)  You know, that makes sense.  What could
you say about the set of weights such that under their influence, the
"effective pi" would become rational?  Algebraic? How big a weight
would you need to get a "pi" of 4?




--
--Greffindel the Plaid

   /\/ \/ \/\
  / ( O  O ) \   Art consists of drawing the line somewhere.
 / */\_/\_/\__\_    --G. K. Chesterton
/ *(          o \
  |*\  --v-v-v-v |  Logic is like a one-legged duck,
   \*\==\            Able to paddle only in circles.
    \*\==\                   --Ancient Chinese Secret
.sig |*|==|
V2.0 |*|==|   I always think I'm going to break
     |*|==|     But in the end I only bend.

http://eagle.cc.ukans.edu/~ipsifend/dragon.html *NO SOLICITING ON PREMISES*