🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5hmksr$vcp@raven.cc.ukans.edu>, ipsifend@eagle.cc.ukans.edu
(Greffindel) wrote:

>Martin Ward (martin@ward-hull.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: In article <5hhge0$48q@raven.cc.ukans.edu>, Greffindel
>: <ipsifend@eagle.cc.ukans.edu> writes
>: >Jonathan Cunningham (jlc@sofluc.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: -- snip --
>: >: 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

[...clippit here...]

>: >
>: >(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

Consider this:  The mass and/or temperature required to produce pi = 4 is
unthinkable.  You are going the wrong way.

In the frozen north (Fairbanks, Alaska) where everything shrinks with the
lowered temperature, it is known that pi = 3.

We call it "Eskimo pi".

earle
               __
            __/\_\
           /\_\/_/   
           \/_/\_\   earle
              \/_/   jones