Re: Pi = 3
- From: nance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Anthony Nance)
- Date: 14 Dec 2005 16:11:26 GMT
In article <hbXnf.41448$6e1.40921@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Mike Schilling <mscottschilling@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>"Anthony Nance" <nance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:dnpdaj$rf7$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> In article <4xWnf.33534$q%.21142@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> Mike Schilling <mscottschilling@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Anthony Nance" <nance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>news:dnpabd$r7c$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>> I will undoubtedly kick myself later for not staying away from
>>>> this discussion as I did the first 317 times, but I am weak enough
>>>> that its 318th occurrence proved too tempting.
>>>
>>>I would have used "314"th.
>>>
>>
>> I really truly did when I first composed it, but felt it was possibly
>> edging too closely to some undesirable combination of "cheeky" and
>> "distracting",
>
>You say that as if those were bad things.
Oh, I appreciate and am demonstrably not averse to such things,
but I found myself in the odd position of committing seriousness
on usenet. I have recovered.
>> so I changed it.
>
>The question remains of why e and pi arise in so many mathematical contexts:
>geometry, infinite series, complex analysis, statistics, etc, etc. I tend to
>think it's an e-pi-phenomenon.
I tend to think it's because the universe is PiE-shaped. (Well done, btw.)
- Tony
.
- References:
- Tolerable "unscience"
- From: Doug
- Re: Pi = 3
- From: Mike Schilling
- Re: Pi = 3
- From: Anthony Nance
- Re: Pi = 3
- From: Mike Schilling
- Tolerable "unscience"
- Prev by Date: Re: A Wrinkle In Time ... next?
- Next by Date: Re: Is Science-Fiction too optimistic?
- Previous by thread: Re: Pi = 3
- Next by thread: Re: Pi = 3
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
