Hello Stephen!
The "fractionalization" of pi is not at all part of a scheme by anti-metric
folks. Fractions were used as rough APPROXIMATIONS of pi, (i.e. 3 1/7) in the past.
With respect to the fractional series provided at the bottom of your message, that is
a good series for approximating pi (given that a sufficient number of fractions).
As someone who knows the history of the development of this magnificent number,
I can tell you that there is NO reason for me to believe that BWMA, metric-sucks,
freedom2mearure-like people are behind this "fractinaliztion 'attempt'" of pi.
Hope this helps!
METRIC ROCKS!
-----Thanks!-----
Cole Kingsbury
USMA member - Age 19
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------
> Can anyone on this mailing list confirm something for me? I had been arguing
> the benefits of decimals and metric over fractions and imperial measurements
> with someone on another website and Pi was mentioned.
>
> I realised that mathematicians over the years have tries to solve Pi by feeding
> millions of decimal numbers into computers but to no avail.
>
> Then he mentioned Liebnitz who, apparently, according to him, had solved Pi
> using fractions in the 1670's.
>
> What I would like to know is, is this actual fact or just another misleading
> piece of propaganda put about by the anti-metric brigade?
>
> The equation he mentioned is below:
>
> he riddle had of course been solved by Leibnitz in the 1670s with a continuous
> series of fractions:
>
>
> Pi = 4 * (1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + 1/9 - 1/11 + 1/13 - 1/15 + 1/17 - 1/19 etc...)
> or expressed in C to 2^24 this code is amazingly accurate.
>
>
> int x = 0;for (int i = 1; i < 16777216; i++) { x += 1/((4*i)-3); x -=
> 1/((4*i)-1); }int pi = 4 * $x;cout pi;
>
