🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 25 Mar 1997 15:48:44 +0000, jlc@sofluc.demon.co.uk (Jonathan
Cunningham) 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:
>>
>>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
>

� not sure of the method you are describing for measuring the
Circumference of the Sphere?

� how accurate have real tools for measuring Circumference and
Diameter?

the best ruler i have seen is only 1 decimal places with the 2 decimal
place being approx.

__________________________________________________________________
                                thanks for your time & patience
�����o�,,�o��������  Keep Those Smiles Rolling ��������o�,,�o�����