Pi!!!!!!!!

[TheBigDog]

I think TBD was thinking practical application, as in brim thickness. Inner diameter "around" vs. outer diameter "across".

I think you get it Southtown. "Thought" is like anything else, you get what you pay for. :)

 

Bill

[eric l]

I know 6 digits by heart - which amounts to a precission of 1 mm per km. If I needed more digits, I used this French verse (mainly because it refers to Archimedes)

Que j’aime à faire connaître ce nombre utile aux sages.

 

Immortel Archimède, artiste, ingénieur,

 

qui de ton jugement peut priser la valeur ?

 

Pour moi ton problème eut de féconds avantages.

 

Counting the characters in each word would give me the same 30 digits.

 

I remember there was an English verse involving alcoholic drinks and quantum mechanics - but no Archimedes allas.

[ronthepon]

I dimly recall some french verse that did pi, but had just one mistake...

[Freethinker]

Leave it to Freethinker to find the way in any thread to link it to bashing religion :D

I take my job seriously!

[Freethinker]

I think TBD was thinking practical application, as in brim thickness. Inner diameter "around" vs. outer diameter "across".

There is nothing PRACTICAL about twisting well established mathematical processes in order to cover up biblical errors.

 

Unless you can show us all the inclusion of inner and outer measurements in this passage:

 

KJV - 1 KINGS 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: [it was] round all about, and his height [was] five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

 

Teacher: Johnny, how much is 2+2?

 

Johnny: 2+2 equals 4 teacher!

 

Teacher: No Johnny, I mean INNER 2 plus OUTER 2 ya dummy!

[Freethinker]

I dimly recall some french verse that did pi, but had just one mistake...

Er the only one I can think of if

 

Pi R square

 

no pie are round...

 

sorry it's doesn't work well in print.

[pgrmdave]

Okay, seriously, cubits have nothing to do with this thread and any discussion of them should be taken to another thread. Let's not get off too terribly on tangents here.

[Southtown]

There is nothing PRACTICAL about twisting well established mathematical processes in order to cover up biblical errors.

"Twisting"? I'm not the one pronouncing a definitive conclusion on a grey area. I'm the one proposing more possibility.

 

And here's another possibility for your cemented perception.

"

Chronologically, the next approximation of pi is found in the Old Testament. A fairly well known verse, 1 Kings 7:23, says: "Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about" (Blatner, 13). This implies that pi = 3. Debates have raged on for centuries about this verse. According to some it was just a simple approximation, while others say that "... the diameter perhaps was measured from outside, while the circumference was measured from inside" (Tsaban, 76). However, most mathematicians and scientists neglect a far more accurate approximation for pi that lies deep within the mathematical "code" of the Hebrew language. In Hebrew, each letter equals a certain number, and a word's "value" is equal to the sum of its letters. Interestingly enough, in 1 Kings 7:23, the word "line" is written Kuf Vov Heh, but the Heh does not need to be there, and is not pronounced. With the extra letter , the word has a value of 111, but without it, the value is 106. (Kuf=100, Vov=6, Heh=5). The ratio of pi to 3 is very close to the ratio of 111 to 106. In other words, pi/3 = 111/106 approximately; solving for pi, we find pi = 3.1415094... (Tsaban, 78). This figure is far more accurate than any other value that had been calculated up to that point, and would hold the record for the greatest number of correct digits for several hundred years afterwards. Unfortunately, this little mathematical gem is practically a secret, as compared to the better known pi = 3 approximation.

" --

"The History of Pi", David Wilson, History of Mathematics, Rutgers, Spring 2000

[eric l]

Well, Southtown, I think this explanation a bit far fetched, and probably from a much later date than the actual verses you refer to.

 

I do not read the Bible on a regular basis, I am probably less familiar with it than many of you. But The Bible does not work with fractions, let alone decimal numbers. Occasionaly there is talk of "tenths", and as far as I remember always referring to a tax, the tenth (ranking) samploe of something to be set appart as a tax.

 

OK, someone is bound to come up with a verse mentioning halves orquarters or something else. But halves and quarters are familiar to children before they have a notion of "fractions" in the mathematical sense. And it is the seventh day (rank) that is the sabat, never stating that this is the seventh part of a week like any other day.

[Southtown]

That was my original opinion. Considering how FT described the cubit (from elbow to fingertip), how could Hebrews measure fractions at all? (ouch) And why would they want to describe pi, anyway? You can't build a circle with pi. You will always need a radius and center for that. Pi is a transcendental number, so [math]\pi[/math]2r can only approximate circumferences by definition. It is interesting that a circle cannot be squared, but for the purpose of a historical record, attempts at such are an unnecessary effort.

 

But the quote in my post is plausible for a few reasons. 1) The Hebrew language does denote numbers with the alphabet. It's not that someone 'assigned' abstract values to the letters later on. Formal Hebrew denotes numeric values with alphabetic characters, just like the Romans. (Hebrew numerals) And 2) the wording in the verse is verifyably unique and only used in three places. Two places are definitely circumferences, and the third could possibly be also. See occurrences of the normal word, קו (Strong's number 06957), and the variant, קוה (Strong's number 06961), at Crosswalk.com. 3) The fact that these words have a numerical difference of 3.1415.../3 is astronomically improbable. The only stretch is multiplying the quotient by 3.

[Turtle]

It is interesting that a circle cannot be squared, but for the purpose of a historical record, attempts at such are an unnecessary effort.

 

:shrug:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaucellier-Lipkin_linkage

[Southtown]

What does that mean? What about Lindemann?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaring_the_circle

[Turtle]

What does that mean? What about Lindemann?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaring_the_circle

 

It means that the circle can be squared, just not by compass and straightedge. Drawing the conclusion that the circle can't be squared by any means is erroneous.

[Turtle]

There is nothing PRACTICAL about twisting well established mathematical processes in order to cover up biblical errors.

 

Unless you can show us all the inclusion of inner and outer measurements in this passage:

 

KJV - 1 KINGS 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: [it was] round all about, and his height [was] five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

:wave: So quickly moving to the impractical (as quickly as a turtle may move), here is a tongue-'n-cheek exegesis.

 

From the passage " and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

 

Compass here does not refer to a compass as a geometer's tool, it refers to 'encompass' as in to constitute or include. More over the phrase 'round about' does not refer to the circumference but as in 'an approximation to'.

So the passage means 'the lava vent was somewhere around 30 cubits in circumference.'

[Southtown]

It means that the circle can be squared, just not by compass and straightedge. Drawing the conclusion that the circle can't be squared by any means is erroneous.

I see thanks. If you can't already tell, I'm learning as I go.

[learnin to learn]

as i read through thus thread I am amused how a topic on mathematics was temporarily turned into a religious debate:). Turtle, do you have more links on cubits?

[Turtle]

as i read through thus thread I am amused how a topic on mathematics was temporarily turned into a religious debate:). Turtle, do you have more links on cubits?

 

Did I give a cubit reference already? :P No matter; ask and you shall receive. ;)

Post #35 here: Hypog link