Talk:Pi/Archive 3

message: I just wonder, do we really need the subsection Pi#Least accurate approximations in the section about numerical approximation? Seems like a curiosity, and it looks to me that it there is much more worthy material both before and after it. How about removing this, or otherwise making it a section at the very bottom with a better name? Oleg Alexandrov 17:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it, but then I rewrote it. Making it a separate section.  Septentrionalis 17:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Least accurate approximations 

message: I personally know pi out to 100+ digits, should we display only 70 on the main page?
In addition, when talking about "pi to n digits" does n include the 3? IMHO, the statemant on the main page "...to a 70 pdeimal places" is correct; howerver, I (as above) often say that I know 100 digits of pi, althoughi don't include the 3 in that count (3.14159 counts as 5 digits). Are my semantics wrong or are both phrases acceptable?
:Digits is ambiguous, and may or may not count the 3. Decimal places does not count the 3; significant digits does. Septentrionalis 13:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The 71st decimal digit is a zero, so 70 seems like a good place to stop. -- Curps 02:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: This section is essentially an archive; you should see below. Melchoir 22:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More digits? 

message: Pi is a numerical constant always equal to 3.14... except for Halloween when it's made of pumpkin: Pumpkin Pi. You can carve it out and then have a positive and a negative Pumpkin Pi. If you teach math it makes an unexpected treat for your students. Jclerman 19:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You, sir, are a terrible, terrible person. I gotta remember that when I finish my math degree and start teaching high schoolers! :-D DevastatorIIC 21:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halloween exception 

message: If a river is old enough that is with a rather meandering and stable path it is known that the ratio between the length of the river and the line connecting its mouth and source yields pi. Would somebody kindly put it into the article? --Dennis Valeev 23:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about that. It seems you could only expect it to work if the river forms a series of semicircles, all of whose centers lie on a single straight line. I've seen some pictures of meandering rivers, and I seem to recall that they're much more creative. In fact, even if the landscape has a simple geometry, the ratio you speak of is probably controlled by the amount of water flow, the altitude of its source, etc., and it could take lots of values. Melchoir 19:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Okay, it's here. It seems the time-averaged ratio tends to pi, but the instantaneous ratio undergoes large fluctuations. Due to erosion, the ratio tends to grow, but the river erases any loops it develops, dropping the ratio suddenly; see Oxbow lake. In this model, there is no such thing as a stable path. I think it's interesting enough to put in the article Meander, with a link from here. Melchoir 22:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reference. Unfortunately I can't access the Science/JSTOR archive from home. I need to go to the university library to access it. This is not the work I'm trying to remember. It's a book, I think published by the USGS, discussing math and rivers (?) by an Arizona geologist, older than the Science article. Perhaps it's mentioned there. I'll have to see it sometime. Definitely, such reference(s) should be in the Meander article. Then after we understand them you can decide if to refer to them in the pi article. Jclerman 23:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  I think that the author of the book I mentioned is the Luna Leopold who authored the Scientific American article. See this webpage  where it says: "For a detailed analysis of the mathematics of meanders and a variety of graphic illustrations, please refer to the article, "River Meanders," by Luna Leopold and W.B. Langheim, Scientific American, June, 1966." Jclerman 23:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the SciAm Leopold article doesn't seem to be online, and I'm not making a trip to the library just for this. Melchoir 23:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rivers and pi 

message: In order to simplify mathematics, the value of PI should be declared to exactly equal (sqrt1+sqrt2). The value of e should be exactly (1+sqrt3). Millions of schoolchildren would benefit from these simplyfications. 195.70.32.136 14:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constants for the masses! 

message: Okay, admittedly this doesn't have anything to do with π per se, but a recent revert by Kungfuadam was done without offering any justification. There doesn't seem to be any previous discussion about the use of formulæ, so why is it being used? The accepted plural of formula is formulas or formulae, not formulæ.    Doesn't the advocacy of uncommon and archaic spellings, such as formulæ, come under Wikipedia is not a soapbox? -- 203.173.24.77 07:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oxford English Dictionary (subscription may be required) The use of nonstandard spellings would indeed come under WP:SOAPBOX, but the use of standard British spellings specifically does not.  —Blotwell 07:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling:  Formulæ vs Formulae 

message: First of all, let me say that I'm grateful for the anonymous contributions to the history section. I've always thought that Nehemiah misses the point of quoting numbers with limited precision. However, I really think the anons are conflating two separate issues:
*In the Biblical passage saying "ten cubits" and "thirty cubits", the intended first-uncertain-digit is either the ones place or the one-tenths place. Even if we assume the latter, we get a range consistent with the true value of pi. This is a valuable insight.
::See discussion below.  Also note that the ancient Hebrews did not have a "one-tenths place" -- decimal fractions came much later. --Macrakis 03:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cubits 

message: I don't think that the 1 Kings passage and its discussion by Nehemiah belong in the Pi article.  At best, they belong in the History of Pi article, but perhaps not even there. Here's why.
The 1 Kings passage itself is not good evidence of knowledge of the value of π.  The figures given are round numbers, and I see no reason to expect that they'd be accurate measurements rather than just impressionistic estimates: the specific numbers just tell the reader that it's a very big vat -- a common practice in ancient texts.  Applying modern engineering assumptions about "significant figures" is completely anachronistic.  For that matter, who says it was precisely circular?  
Nehemiah's exegesis is tendentious and questionable.  The assumptions about the diameter being measured outside the thickness of the vat and the circumference inside its thickness contradict both the text and common sense: it is much more sensible to measure the outside circumference with a rope than to try to measure the inside circumference (how would you even do that?).  The analysis also assumes specific values for cubits and hand-breadths which don't correspond to the values documented in cubit and especially not to the ratio of hand-breadths and cubits, which was normally an exact integer (5, 6, or 7).  By the time of Nehemiah, π was known rather accurately, so it seems he worked backwards to make the 1 Kings text give the right answer.
So it doesn't make sense to use these numbers either to 'prove' that the Hebrews were terrible mathematicians who thought that π was 3 or fabulous mathematicians who were far ahead of their time and thought it was 355/113).  The section does not belong here.  --Macrakis 03:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Nehemiah makes no sense, and okay, sig figs are an anachronism here. The main point with the latter is just that given reasonable assumptions about the imprecision of the language, 3.14 isn't ruled out. I think it's worth mentioning precisely because you so often hear "Bible says pi is 3!!!11!1". Melchoir 04:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why a reasonable account of 1 Kings should stay in the article. If it goes, anons and newbies will keep putting in (usually mistaken) versions. We had enough of this with the Indiana affair, lower down, until someone combined an on-line source with Beckmann to give the present, stable, text there. Septentrionalis 06:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I prefer Macrakis' version; as he points out, using the inner circumference is nonsense, and it misses the point by insisting on more precision than the author intends or the reader should expect. Melchoir 07:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading Melchior's first answer (04:34), I did some quick Web research and realized he was right about the "Bible says π=3" problem--I didn't realize it was so widely discussed.  In my edit after that, I expressly mentioned "other commentators" and (intentionally unspecified) "auxiliary hypotheses" because the inner circumference is not the only way to force the "right" answer -- another commentator (for example) reads the text to mean that the vessel was everted at the top, with the diameter being measured across the wide, everted part, and the circumference around the smaller body. But I agree that Sept's language is crisper. --Macrakis 07:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why ''1 Kings'' doesn't belong here

message: Someone pasted in an insane quantity of digits, and on my browser the sequence doesn't even start with 3.14...and also breaks out of its formatting box. With all the links, no reason to clog up the page with thousands of digits, so can someone please cleanup? This is an important article so I'm scared to mess with it myself.Ben Kidwell 18:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it. Melchoir 19:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please 
*Put a maximum size of text to be entered
or
*Block the IP number of the guy that puts the zillion digits
or
*Both !
Jclerman 01:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please cleanup digit overload 

message: The Spanish wikipedia has a pretty nifty little table that depicts various historical approximations of pi.  Could someone else take a look and see if it is worth translating into English?
:Well, there's already a comprehensive table at History of Pi. Melchoir 06:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Table of different approximations of pi

message: The link for pi to a million places is no more, and it links to a porn site. Frogan 06:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So.... why did you remove it? Melchoir 06:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Because ... it ... wasn't ... offering ... pi ... to ... a ... million ... places. Frogan 06:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: I just reverted an edit to the Prof. Frink quote in the "Fictional references" section.  A quick google search seemed to show that the original is correct, but I wanted to throw it open for discussion if others know differently.  Thanks, --Hansnesse 17:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pi = 3 

message: Melchoir, are you sure the link to this book qualifies as spam? I would think an article should refer to books about the subject. Perhaps it should be placed in "References" instead? -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were two links to a website with little content and whose purpose is to sell a book; my conscience is clean. The dearth of references in this article is, of course, a big problem. If anyone has access to the actual book and would like to use it to verify the article, that would be awesome. Until then, I think it would be misleading to put it in "References". Melchoir 07:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Awesome! Please do. In an ideal world, you would have enough time and energy to seek out specific parts of the article and tag them with inline citations as described at Wikipedia:Citing sources. But that would be a really tedious task, and I'll stop just short of asking you to do it. (I think there are much easier ways to start verifying the article; a good first step would be to split out the sections according to Wikipedia:Summary style.) Just checking a couple of things and adding the book as a reference will already be a big improvement. Melchoir 08:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Joy of Pi 

message: Given Wikipedia's rise in popularity since last year, I anticipate an unprecedented rash of vandalism to this article on March 14. It will be tempting to semi-protect the page, but we probably shouldn't. Just saying. Melchoir 19:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SPP: Note to Administrators: semi-protection should only be considered if it is the only option left available to solve the problem of vandalism of the page. In other words, just like full protection, it is a last resort, not a pre-emptive measure.  Arvindn 22:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm definitely against protecting pages unless it's absolutely necessary.  This page is on a lot of people's watchlists, so unless the vandalism is coming every minute, and is extremely offensive (pictures of dead people or whatever), then protection is not necessary.  I really don't anticipate vandals being all that attracted to Pi. -lethe talk [ +] 22:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pi day 

message: In the trivia section, is there a particular reason why "A9.com" is in bold while "amazon.com" is in italics? Or why the entry should be prefaced by "Corporate pi:" at all? Clark Kent 04:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So go ahead and fix it! Melchoir 05:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporate pi? 

message: All the physics equations listed in the article show PI in a product or division with a physical constant, or referring to chosen measuring units. Thus, it's no significative the appereance of PI there. For example, the quantity  G \cdot \pi  can be defined as a universal constant itself, and so pi would dissapear. This is more a matter of the units and constants chosen, in all those cases. Probably, there are better equations to write as examples.
:But if you defined G · π as the fundamental constant G*, those equations involving G alone would involve G*/π. and π would reappear. The point would be the same. Septentrionalis 01:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the only way to pass between those two different constants is to do a spherical integration (the way you do when you pass from Gauss's law to Coulomb's law).  So it's really true that the π in those equations has little to do with the physical constants, and is rather an artifact of the fact that the equations are written in a spherically symmetric form. 66.188.137.39 01:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role in physics equations 

message: From the properties section:
"Because the coordinates of all points that can be constructed with ruler and compass are constructible numbers, it is impossible to square the circle, that is, it is impossible to construct, using ruler and compass alone, a square whose area is equal to the area of a given circle. If you don't know that you are so stupid!"
Just as some random guy looking at the article, that doesn't seem too professional. I'll leave the editing to someone else though.
Edit: didn't realize it was pi appreciation day, was just going through a textbook in preparation for a test and curious as to wikipedia's pi page. Someone probably snuck it on here today.
:Thanks for spotting it. It was, as you guessed, vandalism.  Wikipedia gets lots of attempts at vandalism, most of which is reverted quickly.  In that case, it was removed in 7 minutes, which is a little longer than ideal.  For more on fighting vandalism, see WP:VAND.  Thanks again, --TeaDrinker 18:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "You are so stupid" in properties of pi? 

message: This article says "As early as the 20th century BC, Babylonian mathematicians were using π=25/8" but in the history of pi article it says that the babylonians started using 25/8 in the 19th century, I didn't want to change anything because I don't know which is right but someone who knows should.  William conway bcc 22:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the Greek, neither article gives an inline citation, so it's impossible to know which, if either, is right. As for the history, I think we should defer to the more specialized article, so I'll change Pi. Melchoir 00:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The second should in any case be perimetron. Septentrionalis 00:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Earliest Uses of Symbols for Constants says: "The first person to use π to represent the ratio of the circumference to the diameter (3.14159...) was William Jones (1675-1749) in 1706 in Synopsis palmariorum mathesios. It is believed he used the Greek letter pi because it is the first letter in perimetron (= perimeter)." The Oxford English Dictionary says that pi is used "in Math. to express the ratio of the circumference or periphery (περιφέρεια) of a circle to its diameter." -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Pi 

message: In the properties section, it is written:
pi is an irrational number; that is, it cannot be written as the ratio of two integers, as was proven in 1761 by Johann Heinrich Lambert.
The proof that pi irrational is thousands of years old. The Pythagoreans knew it, and I'm pretty sure it's in Euclid's Elements as well. I edited it but someone keeps reverting it back. Nan Yang 17:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where have you heard it was known to the pythagoreans? This isn't true. Perhaps you're confusing it with \sqrt{2}? -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have definately confused it with root 2. My apologies.Nan Yang 05:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrationality of Pi

message: This section would merit a page on its own. Maybe I'll give it a try.
(The pi page is so huge I don't even dare to edit the preamble with the statement "for more digits, see the links below" which is not really appropriate. The OEIS page cited just before however gives useful links - I would prefer referring to this.) — MFH:Talk 21:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numerical approximations 

message: This article is still a mess. Starting from the introduction: Too long, much irrelevant suff (for a "zeroeth section"), many things said twice (Euclidean definition...), others not at all.
The "precise" definition should go into a first subsection. A rough approximation (3.14) should be given at the start, etc. etc. — MFH:Talk 16:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  still a mess 

message: I'm sorry for a series of subsequent edits to the top section of pi.
I think that the several equivalent definitions should go into a separate subsection.
It took me about 4 hours to change the formulations in a satisfying way.
Unfortunately, when I finally saved it, I had to notice that the table of contents (which I could not see in the previews) interfered with the display of the first two images.
I made some fixes to the problem, but I'm still not very happy with the current state. I would like to have the circle displayed a bit earlier (I initially put it jut before the ==Definition== which looked quite nice, but only without the T.O.C.).
To get an idea of what I tried to get, consider the featured article on π on German Wikipedia. 
— MFH:Talk 18:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sorry for many edits 

message: Could somebody check the first 1,000,000 digits of pi found on this web site?  They were created by Mathematica (Timing[Export["pi1.txt", N[π, 1000000], "List"]]).  They are put into nice ,TXT files. 
*Should this link be included on the main article? --BorisFromStockdale 04:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't look like a real site. Is this on your personal computer? My browser can't load it. Perhaps your router doesn't allow access. In any case, I don't think a page on someone's personal computer is appropriate for inclusion in an article. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my web server pc got shut down.  It should be up now...--BorisFromStockdale 14:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Meni Rosenfeld: I don't think a page on someone's personal computer is appropriate for inclusion in an article. The OEIS page for Pi's decimals has enough references for any number of wanted digits. — MFH:Talk 19:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with you that the site should not be included in it's current form, it is my site and I am still working on it.  I would like to comment on your statements about personal computers.  Many people host web pages from their home PC's.  For example, if you have a broadband connection supporting 40KB/s upload you can freely host static text web pages and pages with small file sizes.  Many people use Apache for this or SimpleWWWServe.  After they do this, the page can be accessed wia IP adresses.  People then can register their domain names for money and make the DNS web servers redirect traffic to their home PC's iP adress.  Anyway, what I want to say is that even if the web page domain name is not registered and appears as an IP adress, that does not mean that the page is inferior...--BorisFromStockdale 23:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course, appearing as an IP address doesn't make a page infrerior, but it just doesn't look very proffesional. I don't think it's the kind of thing we'd want to link to from an article. If you register a domain name and improve the design, I'll support this link. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I am working on it.  This was just the first trial version of the web sitte. I will revise it over the weekend and also next week.  I was thinking of adding more constants to the site such as GoldenRatio and others...--BorisFromStockdale 20:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as I know I can keep it reliable...  My broadband connection has a static public IP adress, and my computer is always on...--BorisFromStockdale 04:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, what exactly is the linkrot team? --BorisFromStockdale 04:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Your call. I won't change it either way. Wikipedia:Dead_external_links is where people fight linkrot. - CorbinSimpson 06:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Impossible to connect to this web server at present. — MFH:Talk 01:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Still doesn't work!172.205.150.191 08:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Digits

message: Come to think of it, what in the world is the last item in the current Trivia section talking about? Melchoir 21:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A hexagon has length three times its diameter, which is the diameter of the circumscribed circle. A square has length four times the diameter of the inscribed circle. Polygons with more sides lie between these. (Rather than fixing it, I took it out.) Septentrionalis 21:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oy, good call. Melchoir 21:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  At least a certain User:205.200.124.113 with a bit too much of "true wikipedia spirit" (but unwilling to follow the link to unit disc...) understood it some unintended way. I put it back with slight change of wording and more references.— MFH:Talk 22:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Between 3 and 4 

message: I was not able to access this external link: "π available in various lengths, up to 4.2 billion digits" in the main article? --BorisFromStockdale 06:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: never mind, it's back up--BorisFromStockdale 06:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although could you please tell me exactly where the digits are stored on that ftp page?  I have trouble accessin the folders. --BorisFromStockdale 06:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead link?

message: The iamge of the large  π was just moved from left to right with the edit summary "Image should not be on the left".  This seems brusque; for Heaven;s sake, why not? Septentrionalis 01:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It made it look pretty bad, at least on Firefox in GNOME. —Keenan Pepper 02:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Top image

message: I endorse anon rm of: 
:* "Childhood's End" -- science-fiction novel by Arthur C. Clarke (1953). In the novel, a race of aliens that visits Earth mentions discovering a pattern within the digits of π. They indicate that they do not know the meaning of the pattern, but have devoted much effort to uncovering it. They speculate that the pattern could only have been placed there by the creator of the universe.
I am unable to verify this plot point via web and have not a copy handy. I will entertain counterargument. John Reid 00:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If users start removing sourced claims they cannot readily verify, then surely Wikipedia will soon consist of only unsourced claims! LambiamTalk 01:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But I think John Reid is right; that's from Contact by Sagan. Septentrionalis 23:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Seconded, I remember that point from Contact. On the other hand, if I remember correctly: In Childhood's End, the chief Overlord lets slip that his task as adminstrator of Earth is just a temporary assignment, on loan from a civilian job. One of the human characters (the UN secretary-general?) gets the vauge impression that he is "something like a mathematics professor". That, and the general secrecy of the Overlords, seems inconsistent with them disclosing a hidden-message-in-pi project elsewhere in the novel. Henning Makholm 23:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Childhood's End 

message: has added the formula \frac{\pi^2}{8}=1+\frac{1}{9}+\frac{1}{25}+\frac{1}{49}+\cdots. In my opinion it is a trivial consequence of the formula \frac{1}{1^2} + \frac{1}{2^2} + \frac{1}{3^2} + \frac{1}{4^2} + \cdots = \frac{\pi^2}{6} which appears above, and should be removed. Any objections? If no one objects, I will remove the formula. If we do decide to keep it, then we should also add more important formulae such as 1 - \frac{1}{3^3} + \frac{1}{3^5} \cdots = \frac{\pi^3}{32}. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it trivial that the reciprocal even squares account for a fourth of the whole series? In any case, there are too many disjointed formulae on the page, and removing obscure ones has my approval. Henning Makholm 20:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it's trivial and I removed the formula. I will also AfD the new article A property of PI. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, duh! Henning Makholm 09:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think such a list page would be a good idea.  First we'll have to battle over whether to call it "formulas" or "formulae" :-) -lethe talk [ +] 08:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formula by [[user:64.59.233.88|64.59.233.88]] 

message: Why battle first, when we can do it later? :) See List of formulae involving Pi and Talk:List of formulae involving Pi. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of formulae involving Pi]] 

message: I dont understand the purpose of the 'unrolled' subpage. The use of subpages at all is not standard practice on Wikipedia. If it is just about the word 'unrolled' in terms of pi, then maybe it should be moved to Wiktionary? Other information that might be relevant to pi itself should probably be merged into the pi article. Thoughts? Remy B 08:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, since it mostly concerns an obsolete idea of Euclid's, perhaps History of π would be better? Melchoir 09:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The animation is sort of cute, but the claims about Euclid and ancient Greek mathematics are somewhat at odds with what my source (V. J. Katz A History of Mathematics) say. Archimedes explicitly considered the circumference of a circle as a length, and bounded its ratio to the diameter between 223/71 and 22/7, and it was known very early on (Archimedes gave explicit proof) that a rectangle with sides equal to the diameter and the circumference is exactly four times the circle's area. It would be trivial to the Greeks that if you can square the circle, a straight line equal to the circumference can easily be constructed. It is true that Euclid did not consider the ratio between curved and straight lines in the Elements, but that was because he was writing an, ahem, elementary textbook, not because he thought there would be anything inherently meaningless in such a ratio. There just were no results on such curved lines that could be presented with the elementary vocabulary Euclid restricted himself to. Henning Makholm 12:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pi/Unrolled]] 

message: Lets keep islam out of it.  We call 1940's Van Braun rocketry as 'German', not Nazi.  Same as Persian. 23:47, 19 April 2006 by 
: Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which makes it clear who said what, and when. Thank you.  You might also like to add more context to your comment. John Reid 04:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: I don't know where to report this, but the Pi page has been vandilized terribly, look into Properties for starters.
:Thanks, I think I've fixed it. Melchoir 20:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandilism