I should have mentioned in my previous posting that the series is accurate
depending on how many places you carry n out to. In order to be perfectly
accurate, n would have to carried out to infinity. The series is an
approximation if n is anything less then infinity.
I would say that the person is looking for some way to justify the existence
of FFU by finding some vague examples of what is perceived to be the
"superiority" of fractions over decimals and thus the "superiority" of FFU
over SI. As FFU is in its dying last days, you see all kinds of this nut
stuff coming from its supporters.
Euric
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, 2004-06-14 16:32
Subject: [USMA:30116] Re: Liebnitz and Pi.
> I was aware of the 22/7 approximation of Pi (or 3 1/7 if you prefer) but
I've never heard of this one.
>
> I believe this gentlemen is trying to suggest that this equation is more
or less totally accurate rather than a approximation. I believe the latter,
myself.
>
> As I mentioned before, mathematicians have used programs with millions of
numbers in order to solve the mystery of Pi but without success.
>
> Therefore, I fail to see how this version he mentions can be spot-on
rather than a close approximation.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 8:47 PM
> Subject: [USMA:30115] Re: Liebnitz and Pi.
>
>
> > 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;
> > >
> >
>
>
