The value of pi (off topic and into mathematical esoterica)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>XIANA

>  So, why didn't God

>> just dedicate an infinitely large book just to tell us the

>comparatively

>> unimportant information of the circumference a pool.  The truth is

>that

>> anywhere you chose to terminate pi you are introducing an

>inaccuracy.  3 is

>> fine for an approximation, especially if it is something reasonable

>picky like

>> the circumference of a pool.

>

>BRYCE

>     Actually, using the word 'approximately' would have better served

>the author, while saving on paper.  But the text makes no indication

>of an approximation.

>[note:  I'm still about fifty messages behind, so I apologize if

>someone has beaten me to the punch.]

ACHILLES
Not only that, but the "approximate" dimensions, rounded to the nearest
integer (the hebrew number system was based on integers correct?) would
have been (correct me if I am wrong) either "about 9" by "about 30" or else
"about 10" by "about 31" no? Considering a cubit is around a foot and a
half, half a cubit is a noticeable difference. Leads one to suspect the sea
was a figment of the writers imagination, for if it had existed either
1)the difference in the actual measurements and the ones recorded would
have been glaringly noticeable or 2)it would have had to have been a very
obvious example of an elipse, not a circle. 

• Previous message: The value of pi (off topic and into mathematical esoterica)
• Next message: The value of pi (off topic and into mathematical esoterica)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]