Hello USMA ListServ members!
A couple of clarifications that I would like to make with regard to pi:
We still do not know the exact value of pi ( the record is 1.24 X 10^9 decimal
places by individuals of the University of Tokyo).
I am not suggesting the fact that fractions are better than decimals because they
AREN'T. I am an avid decimal fan. I know 200 decimal places of pi and doing 200
decimal places -- exactly -- in fraction-mode would put me over the edge immediatly.
Now, on to metric stuff...
METRIC (and decimals) ROCKS!
--
-----Thanks!-----
Cole Kingsbury
USMA Member - Age 19
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------
> 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;
> > >
> >
>
