I note that 39.37 inches to the meter (post 68), and 25.4mm to the inch (post 61), cannot both be exact. A politician may declare them to be both true by fiat, or a lawyer may deem them to be both true, but arithmetic is stubborn.PRR said:This letter has many objectionable passages and the debate went on for months. One I note is that he thinks "39.37" is an approximation, but in 1913 it was exact by fiat.
1/0.0254 = 39.37007874 according to my calculator.
Pi = 3.2 Another sort of Goodwin point ?
The Indiana Pi Bill is the popular name for bill #246 of the 1897 sitting of the Indiana General Assembly, one of the most notorious attempts to establish mathematical truth by legislative fiat. Despite its name, the main result claimed by the bill is a method to square the circle, rather than to establish a certain value for the mathematical constant π, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. The bill, written by the crank, Edward J. Goodwin, does imply various incorrect values of π, such as 3.2.[1] The bill never became law, due to the intervention of Professor C. A. Waldo of Purdue University, who happened to be present in the legislature on the day it went up for a vote.
The Indiana Pi Bill is the popular name for bill #246 of the 1897 sitting of the Indiana General Assembly, one of the most notorious attempts to establish mathematical truth by legislative fiat. Despite its name, the main result claimed by the bill is a method to square the circle, rather than to establish a certain value for the mathematical constant π, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. The bill, written by the crank, Edward J. Goodwin, does imply various incorrect values of π, such as 3.2.[1] The bill never became law, due to the intervention of Professor C. A. Waldo of Purdue University, who happened to be present in the legislature on the day it went up for a vote.
> bill #246 of the 1897 sitting
That one comes up a lot.
There was *another* bill/rule, passed and used in some midwest state, which simply made Pi=3 for a specific commercial measurement.
As farmers cleared the midwest forest for farms they sold the trees for telephone poles. Large lumber buyers used a caliper. Farmers did not own fairly expensive calipers, instead used a tape to get circumference. They felt Pi was an awkward bit of arithmetic, and got "3" accepted legally as the basis of payment. Of course the upshot is that the tree buyers just reduced the rates paid per inch (rates varied constantly so this could be slipped-in without uproar).
That one comes up a lot.
There was *another* bill/rule, passed and used in some midwest state, which simply made Pi=3 for a specific commercial measurement.
As farmers cleared the midwest forest for farms they sold the trees for telephone poles. Large lumber buyers used a caliper. Farmers did not own fairly expensive calipers, instead used a tape to get circumference. They felt Pi was an awkward bit of arithmetic, and got "3" accepted legally as the basis of payment. Of course the upshot is that the tree buyers just reduced the rates paid per inch (rates varied constantly so this could be slipped-in without uproar).
You know Scott, I've never seen that film. Will now seek it out. Ta!Is that Wee Geordie on the label, it was a wonderful film I saw as a kid?
Attachments
Staying in the context of the thread, where would you weigh a Pi?They felt Pi was an awkward bit of arithmetic, and got "3" accepted legally as the basis of payment.
Someone please indulge me!
Actually I was searching for the Pi = 3, that I recalled was a law in a Texan county. Here, I like better, the trees sold for telephone posts.> bill #246 of the 1897 sitting
That one comes up a lot.
There was *another* bill/rule, passed and used in some midwest state, which simply made Pi=3 for a specific commercial measurement.
As farmers cleared the midwest forest for farms they sold the trees for telephone poles. Large lumber buyers used a caliper. Farmers did not own fairly expensive calipers, instead used a tape to get circumference. They felt Pi was an awkward bit of arithmetic, and got "3" accepted legally as the basis of payment. Of course the upshot is that the tree buyers just reduced the rates paid per inch (rates varied constantly so this could be slipped-in without uproar).
There's a nice demonstration here:... so there's no love for spinning discs that can potentially alter gravity?
YouTube
No this is not true, The USA rejected the metric system because it was too difficult for older Americans to adopt to a new system. We were to have switched by 1979(enacted in 1976?) and had dual speedometers and dual markings on highway signs. Due to protest by older citizens and their lobbies, the rule was reascended under Carter and we are stuck being the odd man out.
Sad thing is we are actually metric in all manufacturing and sales, but "English" officially.
It had nothing to do with Francofibia.
I believe this lack of metrication is a tip of the iceberg of how Americans don't think of the future. So we force future generations to grapple with the clumsy horse-and-buggy collection of US measurements as well as dealing with accumulated debts of the federal government. And we have allowed our infrastructure to go to pot. Students do not test well in math and science. I can name other examples. The whole picture is things appear not to bode well for the US in the future.
Staying in the context of the thread, where would you weigh a Pi?
Someone please indulge me!
I've gotten stuck in your circular reference... I just don't know watt kind of balance would be required.
Watt about one of these?I just don't know watt kind of balance would be required.
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
- Home
- Member Areas
- The Lounge
- New Kilogram definition