Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Starlight problem

2022-10-22T00:17:32Z

AlChesapeake: /* Time dilation field */

The '''starlight problem''', or '''starlight travel-time problem''', concerns the placement of stars at distances so far from Earth that starlight could not traverse that distance, at its current velocity, in less than the age of the universe. Yet the light has reached Earth anyway. This raises a question under both [[atheistic]] and [[biblical]] theories, including the [[Big Bang theory]]: how did this starlight reach Earth so quickly? This is a major point of interest in the question of an [[Old Earth Creationism|old universe]] vs. [[young earth creationism|young universe]].

The starlight problem is not in any conflict with the description in the [[Genesis|Book of Genesis]], in which [[God]] says, "let there be light, and there was light." God does not say, "let there be stars to generate light that can illuminate darkness," or "let there be light, and there was darkness that light later reached."

There is no way to "date" the age of light observed in the sky. The speed of light may not be constant throughout the universe, but that possibility is disfavored by those who adhere to the [[theory of relativity]]. It is also possible that the universe has expanded at a rate faster than the speed of light, although that too would be contrary to the [[theory of relativity]].<ref>http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/10/13/the-universe-never-expands-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/</ref> It is further possible that stellar distances inferred from redshifts are incorrect, as theorized by [[Halton Arp]].

[[image:Crab composite cx.jpg|right|thumb|250px|The Crab nebula, a supernova remnant]]

== The size of the universe ==
The maximum distance that can be determined using parallax calculations is about 3300 light years.<ref>[http://bccp.lbl.gov/Academy/pdfs/Parallax.pdf Parallax], site http://bccp.lbl.gov</ref> Indirect measures, correlating the brightness of stars called ''cepheids'' with the period of their variability, estimate the [[Milky Way]] diameter of approximately 80-100,000 light years, although others estimate the size of the entire universe to be as narrow as only 12,000 light years across.<ref>Fangrad, Richard, 2007.</ref>

Calculations based on the observed brightness of [[supernova]]e of known energy output can determine the distance to more distant objects. The most distant object known is a galaxy cluster is estimated to be approximately thirteen billion light-years away from Earth, observed by the [[Hubble Telescope]] using gravitational lensing.<ref>Amos, 2004</ref>

==Horizon Problem for the Big Bang Theory==

Although [[atheist]]s simplistically use the starlight problem to argue against a young Earth, the [[Big Bang theory]] has had difficulty in explaining its own light travel problem, known as the [[horizon problem]].

The Big Bang model proposes that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe, yet because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out, yet observations today show it to be extremely uniform<ref name="Lisle">Jason Lisle, ''Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang'' Creation 25(4):48–49, September 2003 https://creation.com/light-travel-time-a-problem-for-the-big-bang</ref> (with fluctuations at the part-per-million level<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101Flucts.html Fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background]</ref>).
{{QuoteBox|The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other? This is a light-travel–time problem.<ref name="Lisle" />}}

A number of solutions to this problem have been proposed, including several versions of an "inflationary model", in which space itself expanded faster than the speed of light early in the Big Bang, but ''after'' different areas exchanged radiation to even out the temperature. This model fits the data, as the CMB is only uniform at certain scales; over large enough areas anisotropies are visible in the field that match what one would expect from a rapidly expanding gas. However, there is no consensus on which explanation is correct, and each of the proposed solutions has its own problems.<ref name="Lisle" />
{{Creation vs. evolution}}

== Flaws in arguing for an old universe based on starlight ==

The observation that many stars are millions of light years away is one of ''distance'', not ''time''. Since it takes light one year to travel a distance of one light year, it is possible to view an object as it was in the past, with the number of years in the past equal to the number of light years in distance. Some scientists argue that the oldest objects visible today are gamma ray bursts over 13 billion light-years away,<ref>http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4350/gamma-ray-burst-closest-yet-big-bang</ref> but if the universe is expanding then it should be possible to observe stars that are now actually much further away.

=== Light created in transit ===
As suggested by the "let there be light" verse in Genesis, God likely created light, not merely light sources. Accordingly, some observed light did not necessary travel from a distant star. This concept is generally accepted as an extension of the [[Omphalos hypothesis]], which is the idea that God created the universe with apparent age. One objection to this idea<ref>[https://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use Arguments we think creationists should NOT use], from [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref> is that the light created in transit would make it appear, from an atheistic scientific perspective, that events happened when they really did not. But this is no different from realizing, for example, that [[Adam]] was created as an adult rather than as an embryo. This particular solution is not [[falsifiable]].

=== Moon-Spencer theory ===
Some creationists promoted an idea by Parry Moon and Domina Spencer that light somehow takes a shortcut through "Riemannian Space," taking no more than 15 years to reach Earth from the outer limits of the universe.
However, this idea never really caught on and appears to no longer have adherents.<ref>Humphreys, 1994, p. 46.</ref>

=== Decrease in the speed of light ===

[[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg‎|right|thumb|150px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]]
Creationist [[Barry Setterfield]] has proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past.<ref>Norman and Setterfield, 1986</ref>
This idea initially found wide acceptance by creationists, but is now widely rejected, although some still hold to the idea.

One criticism of it by anti-creationists was that if the speed of light had changed, we should see the difference in the Fine Structure Constant as measured by nearby stars versus distant stars, but this was not observed.
Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in [[Sydney]], Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant may indeed have changed. They subsequently published this in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref>Physical Review Letters 091301, 2001</ref><ref>Sarfati, 2001</ref>
However, although this showed that mainstream scientists are open to new and controversial ideas, the methods Webb used were shown to contain simple flaws, which discredited the results.<ref>M. T. Murphy, J. K. Webb, V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. Lett., 99, 239001 (2007)</ref> A later study of 23 absorption systems using the 'Very Large Telescope' found no measurable changes.<ref>H. Chand et al., Astron. Astrophys. 417, 853 (2004)</ref>

These problems with the theory have led most creationists to drop the idea, although some credit it with stimulating further research.<ref>Humphreys, 1994, p.128</ref> Systematic uncertainties are difficult to quantify and so Webb's results still need to be checked by independent analyses, using quasar spectra from different telescopes. Their efforts are ongoing, apparently by several different teams of scientists.

=== Humphreys' model ===
In 1994 Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] proposed a new cosmology<ref>Batten et. al., 2007, p.90, Humphreys, 1994</ref> that includes a bounded universe with a center and an edge, that God had created 6,000 years ago as a much smaller body than today, then stretched it out, making it much larger.
In Humphreys' model, because the universe has a center and an edge (unlike the unbounded model of the Big Bang universe), the center of the universe is also the center of a [[gravity well]], meaning that gravity is stronger at the center of the universe than at the edge.

As gravity can affect the rate at which time passes, he calculated that while the six days of [[creation week]] were passing on Earth, billions of years' of time was passing at the edge of the universe.
According to this idea, the Biblical references to time are according to an observer (real or imaginary) on Earth, so ages are given in "Earth time".

However, this theory is not without problems. The evidence contradicts Humphrey's assumption that the earth is in a large gravity well. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted. Also, gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor. It is thought that here is ''some'' time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000.<ref>Conner, S. R. and D. N. Page, 1998. Starlight and time is the Big Bang. CENTJ 12(2): 174-194. (See also letters in CENTJ 13(1), 1999, 49-52).</ref> Furthermore, in the event the Earth was in the center of an immense gravity well, the core of the planet should be composed of a soup of subatomic particles, like a Neutron fluid.<ref name="neutronsoup">http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/nstar.html</ref>

This model receives cautious but wide support among creationists.

Humphreys has since revised his model[https://www.icr.org/article/new-creationist-cosmology-no-time-at/] solving the above problems. While calculating a metric for his White Hole Cosmology, Humphreys discovered an as of yet unnoticed (obscured by motion in more complicated metrics) effect of General Relativity, which causes large timeless zones. In Humphrey's model, the Universe is surrounded by a large mass of water, and the Earth is near the center of it, as is evidenced by bigger and bigger spherical shells of galaxies farther away from the Earth. Humphrey's theorizes that the expansion and recession of the fabric of time and its contents created a zone of timelessness, or ''anachronicity'', around our solar system while billions of years passed outside. Because galaxies were formed in shells as the universe expanded, we would be seeing them as they appeared ~6000 years after creation (if we disregard his suspicion about a 500 million year anachronicity zone during the flood), despite them being actually billions of years old.

=== Time dilation field ===

Dr. [[John Hartnett]], a creationist physicist, spurred by Humphreys' model, has proposed an alternative [[time dilation]] model, by theorizing the Earth was in a time-dilation field during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe.
According to the Bible, God "stretched out"<ref>For example, {{Bible ref|Isaiah|40:22}}</ref> the heavens (space), and this movement during [[creation week]] caused time to travel faster for those objects, in accordance with [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[Special Theory of Relativity]], adding to the time dilation caused by [[gravity]], per Humphreys, in accordance with Einstein's [[General Theory of Relativity]].<ref>Hartnett, 2003, Hartnett 2007</ref>

One of the advantages to the Hartnett/Humphreys model is that it could account for the prediction made by big bang theorists in the 1940's - namely the existence and approximate wavelength of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). The existence of CMBR was predicted using a big bang model, however CMBR was not detected until over a decade later <ref>Singh, Simon, Big Bang - The Most Important Scientific Discovery of All Time and Why You Need to Know About It, 2004, ISBN 0 00 715252, Harper Perennial</ref>. Hartnett/Humphreys model has many of the same assumptions as the big bang theory (such as a large passage of time outside the vicinity of Earth). The in-transit theory is less effective at explaining how the prediction of CMBR could have been predicted. This prediction was what popularized the big bang theory over the steady-state theory.

=== Anisotropic synchrony convention ===
The speed of light was calculated at roughly 300 million meters per second by way of having the light go to a mirror and come back, then dividing the time by two. It cannot be done without the mirror since difference in location may alter timing, and any corrections require the speed of light in the calculations. Thus, it has been suggested by Dr. Jason Lisle that the speed of light may not be 300 million meters per second in any direction, but rather instantaneous in one direction and 150 million meters per second in the other.<ref>https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j25_3/j25_3_56-62.pdf, Article: The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention model as a solution to the creationist starlight-travel-time problem, by John Harnett for Creation Ministries International</ref>

== Bibliography ==
* [http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1 Inconstant constant?] ''Physical Review Letters 091301'' (9 August 2001)
* Amos, Jonathan, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3490657.stm Hubble sees 'most distant object'], BBC News, 15 February 2004.
* Batten, Don, Catchpoole, David, Sarfati, Jonathan, Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf How can we see distant stars in a young universe?], chapter 5 of The Creation Answers Book, 2007.
* Fangrad, Richard, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5425 The media spin on the creationists] (Creation Ministries International), 14 November 2007.
* Hartnett, John C., A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem, ''Journal of Creation'' 17(2):98–102, August 2003. [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1616/ HTML] [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf PDF]
* Hartnett, John, Starlight, Time and the New Physics, Creation Book Publishers, 2007 ISBN 978-0-949906-68-7
* Humphreys, D. Russell, Starlight and Time, Master Books, 1994, ISBN 0-89051-202-7.
* Laird, Jeff, [http://swordofthemind.blogspot.com/2008/05/starlight-time-and-new-physics-review.html "Starlight, Time, and the New Physics" (Review)], Gladio Mentis, 26 May 2008.
* Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], ''Creation'' 25(4):48–49, September 2003.
* Norman, T.G. and Setterfield, B., ''The Atomic Constants, Light and Time'', SRI International Invited Research Report, Menlo Park, 1986.
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2430 Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?] 22 August 2001 (Creation Ministries International).
* Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], 9 August 2002 (Creation Ministries International).

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

{{Creation vs. evolution}}
{{Stars}}

Starlight problem

2022-10-22T00:14:47Z

AlChesapeake: comparison of theories to CMBR prediction

The '''starlight problem''', or '''starlight travel-time problem''', concerns the placement of stars at distances so far from Earth that starlight could not traverse that distance, at its current velocity, in less than the age of the universe. Yet the light has reached Earth anyway. This raises a question under both [[atheistic]] and [[biblical]] theories, including the [[Big Bang theory]]: how did this starlight reach Earth so quickly? This is a major point of interest in the question of an [[Old Earth Creationism|old universe]] vs. [[young earth creationism|young universe]].

The starlight problem is not in any conflict with the description in the [[Genesis|Book of Genesis]], in which [[God]] says, "let there be light, and there was light." God does not say, "let there be stars to generate light that can illuminate darkness," or "let there be light, and there was darkness that light later reached."

There is no way to "date" the age of light observed in the sky. The speed of light may not be constant throughout the universe, but that possibility is disfavored by those who adhere to the [[theory of relativity]]. It is also possible that the universe has expanded at a rate faster than the speed of light, although that too would be contrary to the [[theory of relativity]].<ref>http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/10/13/the-universe-never-expands-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/</ref> It is further possible that stellar distances inferred from redshifts are incorrect, as theorized by [[Halton Arp]].

[[image:Crab composite cx.jpg|right|thumb|250px|The Crab nebula, a supernova remnant]]

== The size of the universe ==
The maximum distance that can be determined using parallax calculations is about 3300 light years.<ref>[http://bccp.lbl.gov/Academy/pdfs/Parallax.pdf Parallax], site http://bccp.lbl.gov</ref> Indirect measures, correlating the brightness of stars called ''cepheids'' with the period of their variability, estimate the [[Milky Way]] diameter of approximately 80-100,000 light years, although others estimate the size of the entire universe to be as narrow as only 12,000 light years across.<ref>Fangrad, Richard, 2007.</ref>

Calculations based on the observed brightness of [[supernova]]e of known energy output can determine the distance to more distant objects. The most distant object known is a galaxy cluster is estimated to be approximately thirteen billion light-years away from Earth, observed by the [[Hubble Telescope]] using gravitational lensing.<ref>Amos, 2004</ref>

==Horizon Problem for the Big Bang Theory==

Although [[atheist]]s simplistically use the starlight problem to argue against a young Earth, the [[Big Bang theory]] has had difficulty in explaining its own light travel problem, known as the [[horizon problem]].

The Big Bang model proposes that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe, yet because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out, yet observations today show it to be extremely uniform<ref name="Lisle">Jason Lisle, ''Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang'' Creation 25(4):48–49, September 2003 https://creation.com/light-travel-time-a-problem-for-the-big-bang</ref> (with fluctuations at the part-per-million level<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101Flucts.html Fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background]</ref>).
{{QuoteBox|The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other? This is a light-travel–time problem.<ref name="Lisle" />}}

A number of solutions to this problem have been proposed, including several versions of an "inflationary model", in which space itself expanded faster than the speed of light early in the Big Bang, but ''after'' different areas exchanged radiation to even out the temperature. This model fits the data, as the CMB is only uniform at certain scales; over large enough areas anisotropies are visible in the field that match what one would expect from a rapidly expanding gas. However, there is no consensus on which explanation is correct, and each of the proposed solutions has its own problems.<ref name="Lisle" />
{{Creation vs. evolution}}

== Flaws in arguing for an old universe based on starlight ==

The observation that many stars are millions of light years away is one of ''distance'', not ''time''. Since it takes light one year to travel a distance of one light year, it is possible to view an object as it was in the past, with the number of years in the past equal to the number of light years in distance. Some scientists argue that the oldest objects visible today are gamma ray bursts over 13 billion light-years away,<ref>http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4350/gamma-ray-burst-closest-yet-big-bang</ref> but if the universe is expanding then it should be possible to observe stars that are now actually much further away.

=== Light created in transit ===
As suggested by the "let there be light" verse in Genesis, God likely created light, not merely light sources. Accordingly, some observed light did not necessary travel from a distant star. This concept is generally accepted as an extension of the [[Omphalos hypothesis]], which is the idea that God created the universe with apparent age. One objection to this idea<ref>[https://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use Arguments we think creationists should NOT use], from [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref> is that the light created in transit would make it appear, from an atheistic scientific perspective, that events happened when they really did not. But this is no different from realizing, for example, that [[Adam]] was created as an adult rather than as an embryo. This particular solution is not [[falsifiable]].

=== Moon-Spencer theory ===
Some creationists promoted an idea by Parry Moon and Domina Spencer that light somehow takes a shortcut through "Riemannian Space," taking no more than 15 years to reach Earth from the outer limits of the universe.
However, this idea never really caught on and appears to no longer have adherents.<ref>Humphreys, 1994, p. 46.</ref>

=== Decrease in the speed of light ===

[[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg‎|right|thumb|150px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]]
Creationist [[Barry Setterfield]] has proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past.<ref>Norman and Setterfield, 1986</ref>
This idea initially found wide acceptance by creationists, but is now widely rejected, although some still hold to the idea.

One criticism of it by anti-creationists was that if the speed of light had changed, we should see the difference in the Fine Structure Constant as measured by nearby stars versus distant stars, but this was not observed.
Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in [[Sydney]], Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant may indeed have changed. They subsequently published this in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref>Physical Review Letters 091301, 2001</ref><ref>Sarfati, 2001</ref>
However, although this showed that mainstream scientists are open to new and controversial ideas, the methods Webb used were shown to contain simple flaws, which discredited the results.<ref>M. T. Murphy, J. K. Webb, V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. Lett., 99, 239001 (2007)</ref> A later study of 23 absorption systems using the 'Very Large Telescope' found no measurable changes.<ref>H. Chand et al., Astron. Astrophys. 417, 853 (2004)</ref>

These problems with the theory have led most creationists to drop the idea, although some credit it with stimulating further research.<ref>Humphreys, 1994, p.128</ref> Systematic uncertainties are difficult to quantify and so Webb's results still need to be checked by independent analyses, using quasar spectra from different telescopes. Their efforts are ongoing, apparently by several different teams of scientists.

=== Humphreys' model ===
In 1994 Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] proposed a new cosmology<ref>Batten et. al., 2007, p.90, Humphreys, 1994</ref> that includes a bounded universe with a center and an edge, that God had created 6,000 years ago as a much smaller body than today, then stretched it out, making it much larger.
In Humphreys' model, because the universe has a center and an edge (unlike the unbounded model of the Big Bang universe), the center of the universe is also the center of a [[gravity well]], meaning that gravity is stronger at the center of the universe than at the edge.

As gravity can affect the rate at which time passes, he calculated that while the six days of [[creation week]] were passing on Earth, billions of years' of time was passing at the edge of the universe.
According to this idea, the Biblical references to time are according to an observer (real or imaginary) on Earth, so ages are given in "Earth time".

However, this theory is not without problems. The evidence contradicts Humphrey's assumption that the earth is in a large gravity well. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted. Also, gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor. It is thought that here is ''some'' time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000.<ref>Conner, S. R. and D. N. Page, 1998. Starlight and time is the Big Bang. CENTJ 12(2): 174-194. (See also letters in CENTJ 13(1), 1999, 49-52).</ref> Furthermore, in the event the Earth was in the center of an immense gravity well, the core of the planet should be composed of a soup of subatomic particles, like a Neutron fluid.<ref name="neutronsoup">http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/nstar.html</ref>

This model receives cautious but wide support among creationists.

Humphreys has since revised his model[https://www.icr.org/article/new-creationist-cosmology-no-time-at/] solving the above problems. While calculating a metric for his White Hole Cosmology, Humphreys discovered an as of yet unnoticed (obscured by motion in more complicated metrics) effect of General Relativity, which causes large timeless zones. In Humphrey's model, the Universe is surrounded by a large mass of water, and the Earth is near the center of it, as is evidenced by bigger and bigger spherical shells of galaxies farther away from the Earth. Humphrey's theorizes that the expansion and recession of the fabric of time and its contents created a zone of timelessness, or ''anachronicity'', around our solar system while billions of years passed outside. Because galaxies were formed in shells as the universe expanded, we would be seeing them as they appeared ~6000 years after creation (if we disregard his suspicion about a 500 million year anachronicity zone during the flood), despite them being actually billions of years old.

=== Time dilation field ===

Dr. [[John Hartnett]], a creationist physicist, spurred by Humphreys' model, has proposed an alternative [[time dilation]] model, by theorizing the Earth was in a time-dilation field during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe.
According to the Bible, God "stretched out"<ref>For example, {{Bible ref|Isaiah|40:22}}</ref> the heavens (space), and this movement during [[creation week]] caused time to travel faster for those objects, in accordance with [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[Special Theory of Relativity]], adding to the time dilation caused by [[gravity]], per Humphreys, in accordance with Einstein's [[General Theory of Relativity]].<ref>Hartnett, 2003, Hartnett 2007</ref>

One of the advantages to the Hartnett/Humphreys model is that it could account for the prediction made by big bang theorists in the 1940's - namely the existence and approximate wavelength of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). The existence of CMBR was predicted using a big bang model, however CMBR was not detected until over a decade later <ref>Singh, Simon, Big Bang - The Most Important Scientific Discovery of All Time and Why You Need to Know About It, 2004, ISBN 0 00 715252, Harper Perennial</ref>. Similar to the big bang theory, the Hartnett/Humphreys model allows for a large passage of time (other than on Earth), allowing for a similar formation of CMBR. The in-transit theory is less effective at explaining how the prediction of CMBR could have been predicted. This prediction was what popularized the big bang theory over the steady-state theory.

=== Anisotropic synchrony convention ===
The speed of light was calculated at roughly 300 million meters per second by way of having the light go to a mirror and come back, then dividing the time by two. It cannot be done without the mirror since difference in location may alter timing, and any corrections require the speed of light in the calculations. Thus, it has been suggested by Dr. Jason Lisle that the speed of light may not be 300 million meters per second in any direction, but rather instantaneous in one direction and 150 million meters per second in the other.<ref>https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j25_3/j25_3_56-62.pdf, Article: The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention model as a solution to the creationist starlight-travel-time problem, by John Harnett for Creation Ministries International</ref>

== Bibliography ==
* [http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1 Inconstant constant?] ''Physical Review Letters 091301'' (9 August 2001)
* Amos, Jonathan, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3490657.stm Hubble sees 'most distant object'], BBC News, 15 February 2004.
* Batten, Don, Catchpoole, David, Sarfati, Jonathan, Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf How can we see distant stars in a young universe?], chapter 5 of The Creation Answers Book, 2007.
* Fangrad, Richard, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5425 The media spin on the creationists] (Creation Ministries International), 14 November 2007.
* Hartnett, John C., A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem, ''Journal of Creation'' 17(2):98–102, August 2003. [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1616/ HTML] [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf PDF]
* Hartnett, John, Starlight, Time and the New Physics, Creation Book Publishers, 2007 ISBN 978-0-949906-68-7
* Humphreys, D. Russell, Starlight and Time, Master Books, 1994, ISBN 0-89051-202-7.
* Laird, Jeff, [http://swordofthemind.blogspot.com/2008/05/starlight-time-and-new-physics-review.html "Starlight, Time, and the New Physics" (Review)], Gladio Mentis, 26 May 2008.
* Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], ''Creation'' 25(4):48–49, September 2003.
* Norman, T.G. and Setterfield, B., ''The Atomic Constants, Light and Time'', SRI International Invited Research Report, Menlo Park, 1986.
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2430 Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?] 22 August 2001 (Creation Ministries International).
* Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], 9 August 2002 (Creation Ministries International).

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

{{Creation vs. evolution}}
{{Stars}}

Talk:Essay:pi contains pi

2022-09-18T22:00:00Z

AlChesapeake:

==Proof by contradiction that π does not contain π==
{|
|style="background-color:lightblue"|
#π is given as a digital expansion x0.x1x2x3x4x5...
#"finding π in π" means that there is an index n such that π starts all over again at xn
#If π starts again at n, then x0 = xn = 3, x1 = xn+1 = 1, x2 = xn+2 = 4, x3 = xn+3 = 1 and so on. "And so on" means that xk = xk+n for each natural number k, i.e.,. k ∈ N0.
#What happens if k equals n? What is the value of xn + n? According to the step above, xn + n =xn. But xn=x0=3 ! So, xn + n = xn=x0=3
#That's true for all multiples of n: if w ∈ N0, then xw n = x(w-1) n = .... = x2 n = xn = x0 = 3.
#What about xw n +k ( 0 ≤ k < n )? Again, xw n +k = x(w-1) n +k = x(w-2) n +k = x2 n +k = xn +k = xk
#So, for every natural number w and every number k with 0 ≤ k < n we have: xw n +k = xk. That makes π periodic, the length of the period is n.
#Therefore, π can be written as x0x1x2x3...xn-1 / (10n-1 -1) . But this is a rational number, and we know that π is irrational.
#We have a classical contradiction: As our result is wrong, our assumption that π is contained in π has to be wrong.
|}

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 19:14, August 4, 2021 (EDT)

:Your analysis above seems to assume a periodicity, which in turn assumes some kind of end point to the string of digits. But there is neither.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 20:13, August 4, 2021 (EDT)

::I don't assume periodicity, periodicity is the result of assuming that "π contains π" ... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 03:29, August 5, 2021 (EDT)

== Reddit Commentary ==
So, here are excerpts from the top three comments:
#'''*My guess is: No, it doesn't, because then it would be a repeating decimal.'''
#'''I think you're right about all of this, but it's currently unknown whether Pi contains all finite sequences of digits.'''
#'''Your proof of pi not containing itself is actually remarkably rigorous and proves that pi must not contain itself.'''

Andy, how do those make your point? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 19:19, August 4, 2021 (EDT)
: I'm being fair to both sides, and did not think the Reddit postings made my point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 20:00, August 4, 2021 (EDT)

== At last Andrew Schlafly says: π does not contain π ==

"Stated another way, no one disputes that pi includes every number that has a finite representation. Thus pi includes itself in all of its increasingly precise representations, without limit, and therefore pi contains pi itself within a vanishingly small margin of error."

So, '''π does not contain &pi''', but π contains every finite approximation of π? That is nothing special: [[Emile Borel]] proved a century ago, that almost all irrational numbers are [[normal number|normal]], and therefore, almost all irrational numbers contain every finite approximation of π, ''e'', √2, etc.

The difficulty is to prove for a given number that it is normal: no one has established this for π yet.

But I thought that your claim was that π contains π as a "consecutive sequence of digits in π" or as an "infinite and unbroken sequence of digits in π". How on earth could I get such a wrong impression? Oh, that's why:
{|
|style="background-color:lightblue"|Could you explain what you mean by "pi contains pi" exactly? Usually, when looking for birthdays, you would look for a consecutive string of six numbers. And mathematicians are certain that you could find the text of "Hamlet" if you take π mod 26 as a unbroken string. That seems to be different from your idea to find pi... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 15:25, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
|-
|style="background-color:pink"|Not different at all. "Pi contains pi" means what it says: the full pi within pi. [[Infinity denial]] appears to be an obstacle here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:38, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|For clarification: π containing π means that there is a consecutive sequence of digits in π (not starting from the first one) which equals π? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:07, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
|-
|style="background-color:pink"|Right, as I proved above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:13, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|Sorry for being a little bit thick (or nitpicking) - perhaps I have difficulties because English isn't my first language... OTOH: mathematics is universal!

You are saying that there is a infinite and unbroken sequence of digits in the representation of π (not starting with the first significant digit) equal to π ?

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:34, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
|-
|style="background-color:pink"|Yes. Repeatedly asking for clarification of something that is clear could be the result of denial, in this case [[infinity denial]]. I don't think the disconnect has anything to do with communication in [[English]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:59, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
|}
Infinity denial indeed! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 03:48, August 5, 2021 (EDT)

== No one disputes that pi includes every number that has a finite representation ==

No one '''''knows''''':

*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg9admPCQhI discovermaths] "Is π normal?"
*[https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Pi.html WolframMathWorld]: "''It is also known that pi is not a Liouville number (Mahler 1953), but it is not known if pi is normal to any base (Stoneham 1970).''"

It is a collective hunch that π is normal, but there is no proof (yet)! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 14:37, August 5, 2021 (EDT)
:The issue of whether pi is normal is interesting but seems unrelated to the issue here of whether pi contains pi.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:05, August 6, 2021 (EDT)

::Sorry to disagree - the issue is central: π has at least to be a ''normal number base 10'' to assure that all finite sequences of digits appear in its representation. Otherwise, there could be an index when π starts to look like ..010010001000010000010000001.... and so forth, with no chance to detect arbitrarily long approximations of π in it. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:37, August 6, 2021 (EDT)

== Andy, you are nearly there! ==

*"''Pi containing pi means that there will be a string of numbers that repeat themselves: from the beginning of pi to when it first begins to repeat itself, which then would repeat itself again and again.''" Indeed, that's what I have shown above in [[#Proof_by_contradiction_that_π_does_not_contain_π]]
*"''However, it is generally assumed that there are no repeating patterns in pi.''" That's not a ''general assumption'', that's a ''proven fact'': it was proved for the first time in the 1760s by a certain Johann Heinrich Lambert, and since then, many more accessible proofs have been found.

So, what happens when an assumption leads to a contradiction to a proven fact? We get a [[proof by contradiction]]! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 03:38, August 6, 2021 (EDT)
:The repetition likely won't happen until after an infinite number of digits, so this is not a problem. I've updated the essay on this point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:01, August 6, 2021 (EDT)

::Pray, what is the index of the first occurrence of this repetition? Is it x∞ + 12 ? Or x∞ + 4125 ? Or even x2∞? How is the weather on the day after the infinite reign of God?
::For someone criticizing everybody else for their understanding of infinity, you write some weird stuff! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 11:32, August 6, 2021 (EDT)

:::Been thinking about this one a lot - where the essay states, "the periodicity may not occur until after an infinite string of digits" - can "endless" be substituted for "infinite?" ICR in its "The God of Infinities" essay states, "Something is infinite if it goes on forever, having no end." so this would seem like a logical substitution. However, "the periodicity may not occur until after an endless stream of digits" is contradictory. ([[User talk:AlChesapeake|talk]]) 10:48, September 18, 2021.

:::Just read Charles Pinter's "A Book of Abstract Algebra" - it has an appendix on inductive proofs and was reminded of this. The Pinter book's text is similar to the article already in Conservapedia [[Proof_by_induction]]. The set under discussion must contain first "zero" and it also must contain all n+1 for any n in the set. Using the set of natural numbers, even if something is true for any natural number, that statement is not been proven for infinity, as infinity is not a natural number. It's confusing because infinity is often used as a real number (the integral of 1/x^2 from 1 to infinity results in the natural number one, for example). But in this case, any natural number however large is not the same as infinity. ([[User talk:AlChesapeake|talk]]) 10:48, September 18, 2022.

Talk:Essay:pi contains pi

2022-09-18T21:59:02Z

AlChesapeake: Proof by Induction issues

==Proof by contradiction that π does not contain π==
{|
|style="background-color:lightblue"|
#π is given as a digital expansion x0.x1x2x3x4x5...
#"finding π in π" means that there is an index n such that π starts all over again at xn
#If π starts again at n, then x0 = xn = 3, x1 = xn+1 = 1, x2 = xn+2 = 4, x3 = xn+3 = 1 and so on. "And so on" means that xk = xk+n for each natural number k, i.e.,. k ∈ N0.
#What happens if k equals n? What is the value of xn + n? According to the step above, xn + n =xn. But xn=x0=3 ! So, xn + n = xn=x0=3
#That's true for all multiples of n: if w ∈ N0, then xw n = x(w-1) n = .... = x2 n = xn = x0 = 3.
#What about xw n +k ( 0 ≤ k < n )? Again, xw n +k = x(w-1) n +k = x(w-2) n +k = x2 n +k = xn +k = xk
#So, for every natural number w and every number k with 0 ≤ k < n we have: xw n +k = xk. That makes π periodic, the length of the period is n.
#Therefore, π can be written as x0x1x2x3...xn-1 / (10n-1 -1) . But this is a rational number, and we know that π is irrational.
#We have a classical contradiction: As our result is wrong, our assumption that π is contained in π has to be wrong.
|}

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 19:14, August 4, 2021 (EDT)

:Your analysis above seems to assume a periodicity, which in turn assumes some kind of end point to the string of digits. But there is neither.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 20:13, August 4, 2021 (EDT)

::I don't assume periodicity, periodicity is the result of assuming that "π contains π" ... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 03:29, August 5, 2021 (EDT)

== Reddit Commentary ==
So, here are excerpts from the top three comments:
#'''*My guess is: No, it doesn't, because then it would be a repeating decimal.'''
#'''I think you're right about all of this, but it's currently unknown whether Pi contains all finite sequences of digits.'''
#'''Your proof of pi not containing itself is actually remarkably rigorous and proves that pi must not contain itself.'''

Andy, how do those make your point? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 19:19, August 4, 2021 (EDT)
: I'm being fair to both sides, and did not think the Reddit postings made my point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 20:00, August 4, 2021 (EDT)

== At last Andrew Schlafly says: π does not contain π ==

"Stated another way, no one disputes that pi includes every number that has a finite representation. Thus pi includes itself in all of its increasingly precise representations, without limit, and therefore pi contains pi itself within a vanishingly small margin of error."

So, '''π does not contain &pi''', but π contains every finite approximation of π? That is nothing special: [[Emile Borel]] proved a century ago, that almost all irrational numbers are [[normal number|normal]], and therefore, almost all irrational numbers contain every finite approximation of π, ''e'', √2, etc.

The difficulty is to prove for a given number that it is normal: no one has established this for π yet.

But I thought that your claim was that π contains π as a "consecutive sequence of digits in π" or as an "infinite and unbroken sequence of digits in π". How on earth could I get such a wrong impression? Oh, that's why:
{|
|style="background-color:lightblue"|Could you explain what you mean by "pi contains pi" exactly? Usually, when looking for birthdays, you would look for a consecutive string of six numbers. And mathematicians are certain that you could find the text of "Hamlet" if you take π mod 26 as a unbroken string. That seems to be different from your idea to find pi... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 15:25, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
|-
|style="background-color:pink"|Not different at all. "Pi contains pi" means what it says: the full pi within pi. [[Infinity denial]] appears to be an obstacle here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:38, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|For clarification: π containing π means that there is a consecutive sequence of digits in π (not starting from the first one) which equals π? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:07, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
|-
|style="background-color:pink"|Right, as I proved above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:13, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|Sorry for being a little bit thick (or nitpicking) - perhaps I have difficulties because English isn't my first language... OTOH: mathematics is universal!

You are saying that there is a infinite and unbroken sequence of digits in the representation of π (not starting with the first significant digit) equal to π ?

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:34, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
|-
|style="background-color:pink"|Yes. Repeatedly asking for clarification of something that is clear could be the result of denial, in this case [[infinity denial]]. I don't think the disconnect has anything to do with communication in [[English]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:59, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
|}
Infinity denial indeed! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 03:48, August 5, 2021 (EDT)

== No one disputes that pi includes every number that has a finite representation ==

No one '''''knows''''':

*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg9admPCQhI discovermaths] "Is π normal?"
*[https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Pi.html WolframMathWorld]: "''It is also known that pi is not a Liouville number (Mahler 1953), but it is not known if pi is normal to any base (Stoneham 1970).''"

It is a collective hunch that π is normal, but there is no proof (yet)! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 14:37, August 5, 2021 (EDT)
:The issue of whether pi is normal is interesting but seems unrelated to the issue here of whether pi contains pi.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:05, August 6, 2021 (EDT)

::Sorry to disagree - the issue is central: π has at least to be a ''normal number base 10'' to assure that all finite sequences of digits appear in its representation. Otherwise, there could be an index when π starts to look like ..010010001000010000010000001.... and so forth, with no chance to detect arbitrarily long approximations of π in it. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:37, August 6, 2021 (EDT)

== Andy, you are nearly there! ==

*"''Pi containing pi means that there will be a string of numbers that repeat themselves: from the beginning of pi to when it first begins to repeat itself, which then would repeat itself again and again.''" Indeed, that's what I have shown above in [[#Proof_by_contradiction_that_π_does_not_contain_π]]
*"''However, it is generally assumed that there are no repeating patterns in pi.''" That's not a ''general assumption'', that's a ''proven fact'': it was proved for the first time in the 1760s by a certain Johann Heinrich Lambert, and since then, many more accessible proofs have been found.

So, what happens when an assumption leads to a contradiction to a proven fact? We get a [[proof by contradiction]]! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 03:38, August 6, 2021 (EDT)
:The repetition likely won't happen until after an infinite number of digits, so this is not a problem. I've updated the essay on this point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:01, August 6, 2021 (EDT)

::Pray, what is the index of the first occurrence of this repetition? Is it x∞ + 12 ? Or x∞ + 4125 ? Or even x2∞? How is the weather on the day after the infinite reign of God?
::For someone criticizing everybody else for their understanding of infinity, you write some weird stuff! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 11:32, August 6, 2021 (EDT)

:::Been thinking about this one a lot - where the essay states, "the periodicity may not occur until after an infinite string of digits" - can "endless" be substituted for "infinite?" ICR in its "The God of Infinities" essay states, "Something is infinite if it goes on forever, having no end." so this would seem like a logical substitution. However, "the periodicity may not occur until after an endless stream of digits" is contradictory. ([[User talk:AlChesapeake|talk]]) 10:48, September 18, 2021.

:::Just read Charles Pinter's "A Book of Abstract Algebra" - it has an appendix on inductive proofs and was reminded of this. The Pinter book's text is similar to the article already in Conservapedia [[Proof by Induction]]. The set under discussion must contain first "zero" and it also must contain all n+1 for any n in the set. Using the set of natural numbers, even if something is true for any natural number, that statement is not been proven for infinity, as infinity is not a natural number. It's confusing because infinity is often used as a real number (the integral of 1/x^2 from 1 to infinity results in the natural number one, for example). But in this case, any natural number however large is not the same as infinity. ([[User talk:AlChesapeake|talk]]) 10:48, September 18, 2022.

Talk:Essay:Worst Liberal Movies

2022-02-27T19:36:38Z

AlChesapeake: /* note on sources for Alien */ new section

I am removing Scarface because it is a remake of a 1932 classic (which had the same plot, and definitely wasn't "liberal"), it in no way "glorifies" gangsterism and drug abuse since at the end of the film it shows the consequences of Tony Montanna's life of crime and drugs (He loses his wife, his best friend and his sister as a result of his reckless ways) and finally, the film is a classic. Even if it is liberal its still one of the most critically acclaimed films of all time and definitely doesn't belong on a list of movies that are the "worst". And as for Ferris Bueller's day off, I'm deleting that one whether you like it or not.
:''And as for Ferris Bueller's day off, I'm deleting that one whether you like it or not.'' Really? Well I am reverting and blocking you - whether you like it or not. Come back with a better, more collaborative, attitude next time. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:36, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

The name of this article should be changed to "Most overtly liberal movies" since several of the mentioned films are very well made and thus good movies.
--[[User:AlexanderSz|AlexanderSz]] 19:55, 5 December 2011 (EST)

Back to the Future and Mrs. Doubtfire are also on this, I am going to remove them both because they are very successful films and have become classics, and definitely do not belong on a list of movies considered the worst.--[[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 14:36, 29 April 2017 (EDT)

== questionable entries ==

can a new category for movies that are questionably liberal be added. "The Social Network" is not overtly liberal. In the protagonist in a negative light, showing how Facebook ruins his life (his best friend sues him, he seems depressed, etc). It depicts everyone involved as jerks. It is questionably liberal because some liberals like the mean spirited Zuckerberg. Also, V for Vendetta is a libertarian movie. It is anti big government (and I would say anti communism). However it is anti religion, so again, questionably liberal
--[[User:AlexanderSz|AlexanderSz]] 19:55, 5 December 2011 (EST)

If you're going to include a classic film like "Monty Python's Meaning of Life" then you had best rename the article to "liberal movies", as most of these movies are actually brilliant films and are by no means "the worst". But then again the "Best Conservative Movies" list has some dreadful films on it like "Space Jam" and "The Room". This site seems to have a very liberal definition of the term "liberal", and an even more liberal definition of the words "worst" and "best".
--[[User:Danielspence|Danielspence]] 09:42, 13 April 2012 (EST)

:Disagreements about a few of the entries in each list is to be expected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:25, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::If entries do not reflect the general opinion of Conervapedia users then why aren't they removed? No justification for the inclusion of "The Meaning of Life" has been given. It's inclusion on the list is very dubious. This list previously included classic films such as "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" and "Scarface", which I removed without being reinstated afterwards. Why not remove "The Meaning Of Life"?
--[[User:Danielspence|Danielspence]] 21:13, 14 April 2012 (EST)
:::Regarding ''V for Vendetta'', actually, most of the film was left-wing. The original comic may have been libertarian (showing the negative consequences of both totalitarianism and anarchy), but the actual film promoted full out anarchy without covering the negatives. Also, technically, it was supposed to be anti-Nazi, as the Norsefire party was meant to emulate Nazi Germany (which even the left hates). And I have read that there was more pro-communist messages in the film anyways, though I might have to dig it out. Actually, I think the Wachowski Brothers, or at least Larry/Lana Wachowski, were self-confessed Marxists. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 23:31, 10 December 2013 (EST)
:I removed the ''Frozen'' entry, namely because the reason for it being included was simply because of what an obscure pastor and a blog post stated. I'm against the gay agenda, and I personally wouldn't be surprised if Disney churned it out now, but really, John Nolte of Breitbart, who is not only conservative, but in his own words, is very good at spotting Hollywood leftist agendas from a hundred yards away, had viewed ''Frozen'' and could not pick up on any agendas in the film, certainly not the homosexual agenda. At best, the only "gay" it pushed was making people smile, what "gay" originally meant before the homosexuals hijacked the term. Here's the article: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/03/13/Disneys-frozen-is-not-homosexual-propaganda. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 12:39, 11 April 2014 (EDT)

==The Life of Brian==
I will not stand for this film's inclusion on this list, it should be deleted immediately. Perhaps you should actually watch the film for yourself before making silly assumptions about it. BRIAN IS NOT JESUS! He is not portrayed as a Christ-like figure, the Pythons have made it very clear in interviews and documentaries that the film was not made to mock Jesus, or his followers; it simply makes fun of people who don't think for themselves and rely on what other people say, much like the critics of the film, who blasted the film as "blasphemous" on the basis of what other people who hadn't seen the film said. The fact that we are debating this in 2012 is absolutely ludicrous. I could name many other films that were a lot more blasphemous that aren't on this list. The fact that it is on a list of "worst movies" is even more insulting; Even if you were offended by the movie, you can't deny the great wit and satire that is found in this film. The reference to it being "anti-semetic" is just plain untrue.--[[User:Danielspence|Danielspence]] 15:30, 29 August 2012 (EST)

== Bestiality in Avatar? ==

If I recall correctly, in ''The Lord of the Rings'', the human protagonist Aragorn has a "creepy" romance with an Elvish woman. While I am in favour of Avatar's inclusion on this list, I find that particular criticism a bit bizarre. --[[User:Danielspence|Danielspence]] 15:18, 4 October 2012 (EDT)
:I know this is an old topic, but I digress... At least with Lord of the Rings, the Elves were extremely similar enough to humans to pass as such (only difference being that elves had pointy ears). Avatar's situation, however, has him striking a romance with an alien that clearly doesn't even look remotely human (probably the closest thing to them being human being that they were bipeds), so you can probably see why that would be considered bestiality. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 19:00, 21 January 2014 (EST)

== Jackass??? ==
Not to mention the fact a lot of activists use Steve0 and Johnny Knoxville as a political and 'ethical' examples (SteveO's vegan and climate change activism) as well as the almost torturous stunts, that (in my opinion) is pretty dang immoral.--[[User:Man O Wisdom|Man O Wisdom]] ([[User talk:Man O Wisdom|talk]]) 21:14, 26 January 2020 (EST)[[User:Man O Wisdom]] 13:21, 26 January 2020 (CT)

Why is ''Jackass: The Movie'' a liberal movie? Its completely unpolitical.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 15:10, 1 January 2014 (EST)

:You can remove it if you like. But everything has a political slant or effect, even if a slight one. If a movie leads people away from the [[Bible]] or conservative values, for example, then it does have a political effect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 1 January 2014 (EST)
::But Jackass has no political effect and it does not lead people away from the Bible.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 08:04, 2 January 2014 (EST)

== Elysium is in a league of its own and deserves its own page. ==

So, I'd like to mention how stupidly liberal Elysium is. In fact, it's so horribly liberal it's conservative. I just have to rant because I've had one of the most horrible times of my life watching that movie.

Spoilers obviously

*See the people living on Earth only seem to be criminals or employed by the wealthy. The wealthy live happily because they are not overpopulating in their domain. In fact, it seems the wealthy can make themselves younger again, and suffer no death where they live, because they've learned to properly balance their consumption, population levels, laws, all the while not aging, etc.

*Scientifically speaking, when the main character enters a "radiation vent" or whatever, he gets radiated by an error in the machine he's stuck in. Thing is, radiation doesn't just "come and go" the way the movie plays it. It's either there in which he was radiated the moment he entered that section, or he was faking it to begin with. And why exactly are they radiating the cargo? It's in a wooden crate meaning the radiation would seep in.

*Criminals illegally break into the border and it seems there are virtually no defense systems whatsoever to prevent this from happening. This seems stupid, because it would obviously need defenses from meteors and comets. Their only "defense" is an evil homeless guy with a bazooka that can shoot space ships from Earth.

*The evil plan didn't make sense. They put "the key" to Elysium in a guy's head to modify Elysium to serve another rich person, but the only way it can work is if they kill the person who has the key. How exactly did he get the key in his head from Earth, and how did the poor people steal it?

*The rich seem to only not want to share "free healthcare" because of one reason: they're mean. The rich are portrayed as soulless monsters who have nothing better to do than be mean. It doesn't seem to explain a logical reason for why they're not sharing this health system which perfectly heals all wounds at seemingly no cost.

*The only person who seems to have a job without relying on wealthy people is some old lady who owns pigs in a cart. The rest are criminals because they themselves are incapable of supporting one another through real work and independent job creation.

*The "health pods" cured a guy who died from a head on collision from a grenade and turned elderly young. But they cant fix the main character? The brain of one guy literally exploded and he's still curable.

*At the end of the movie, the robots are programmed to identify everyone as a citizen of Elysium. The wealthy have pale looks on their faces. For some odd reason, the robots export the healthcare pods away from Elysium, as well as bringing in more people to Elysium. What makes the people there pale isn't the fact that they "can't be mean anymore" as some liberals might assume, but because they can no longer guarantee their own survival on the resources they've earned. And once it's gone, it'll be gone for good. They'll soon reach a mountainous population, unable to feed themselves due to a loss of resources at the colossal level of immigration and unaging pods and a constantly high birthrate.

*What bothers me the most about Elysium isn't the fact that this movie is the political opinion of a British guy about the US, or even how stupidly bias the movie was. What bothered me the most was the critical acclaim the movie got. I feel that if I made a movie about how demonic creatures are entering a holy land of peace: The evil liberdemons who want nothing more than to take all of our wealth, happiness, and means of defending ourselves for their personal interest and kill whomever they feel like, while the main character sacrifices himself to produce a powerful border-barrier that eliminates the ability for soulless liber-demons to cross... I'd be called a bigot. The reviews for Elysium seem to be nothing but positive, with people saying, "it makes you think," "behind all the action is a moral," and all this other crap. Why is this movie held in such high esteem? It does its best to portray anyone conservative as evil while liberals are portrayed as victims and innocents.

Of all things the disgusting experience I had watching that movie has made me more conservative than ever in my life.
[[User:Patriotic|Patriotic]]
:Gonna have to agree with you in this one. Not only it attacks capitalism but it promotes Open Borders. and the Irony is that Neil Blomkamp was surprised with the correlation. [[User:ZackG|ZackG]] ([[User talk:ZackG|talk]])

== Renaming section ==

Would it be a good idea to rename the '''Anti-Religious''' section to '''Anti-Christian'''?
I say this because the comment for ''Cloud Atlas'' in that section begins, "Supports the idea of reincarnation and features anti-Christian undertones."
Some non-Christian religions support the idea of reincarnation, and I would think most non-religious liberals don't, except the new-age hippy types. It seems that films which are anti-Christian but not secular should be included in the section, but the section heading doesn't reflect that. [[User:ConsMovies|ConsMovies]] 11:43, 9 January 2015 (EST)

== PRothan's removals ==

I know little about these movies, as I watch very few, but it seems that [[User:PRothan|PRothan]] is removing an awful lot of entries, especially for a new member. Are we sure that there removals are appropriate? --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 14:07, 12 May 2016 (EDT)
:PRothan removed Edward Scissorhands from this web page. Edward Scissorhands was pretty much endorsed by Christiananswers.net with a 4 out of 5 stars rating.[http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/2005/edwardscissorhands1990.html]. Christiananswers.net is a Bible believing Christian website. My guess is that PRothan may be doing a lot of helpful pruning from this web page.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:03, 12 May 2016 (EDT)
::Okay, good! I hate to be cynical, but when someone creates and account and begins removing large amounts of text, I get suspicious. Glad to hear it then, and thanks for the second opinion! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 18:44, 12 May 2016 (EDT)

== The Princess and the Frog ==

I don't really know why The Princess and the Frog is on here. If anything, it promotes conservative values. The main character has been taught the value of hard work by her father and is working hard to save enough money to start her own business, and the prince, who starts the movie as an amoral hedonist who just wants everything given to him, gradually learns the value of sacrifice and caring for other people. It's true that one of the characters who helps them is a "blind voodoo lady", and not Christian, but she's no less Christian than all the fairy godmothers in all the old Disney movies. If no one objects, I'm going to remove this entry. --[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] ([[User talk:Whizkid|talk]]) 18:45, 31 May 2016 (EDT)

I agree with Whizkid. (BTW, I also thought Brave was pretty good. I don't see how it's anti-conservative. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 00:08, 16 September 2017 (EDT)

:Ah, let's see, there's the fact that it promoted feminism to such an extent that even when Merida was actually given the choice regarding her grooms hand in marriage, she still pitched a fit, and mostly didn't even want to get married because it would have interfered with her archery skills (not to mention didn't even end with marriage anyways), the women were depicted as the "wise" ones while the father is depicted as a bumbling idiot. Oh, and Merida even attempted to outright ''drug'' her mom to have her see things her way (sure, she didn't plan on turning her into a bear, but she definitely didn't plan anything good for her mom beforehand anyway). There's definitely a whole lot of liberal stuff in there, far more than truly conservative stuff. Yes, it may have its following. So does Star Trek, and that's pretty blatantly a liberal franchise regardless of whether conservatives are fans of it or not. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:54, 16 September 2017 (EDT)

I don't know about that. Merida was only a teenager. Besides, it's not like you are required to support the orders of your parents in marrying someone according to the Bible to the point where you are ordered whom to marry. What they said was that she would marry whomever she loved. Forcing someone to marry someone that they probably wouldn't even love would be a bad idea. While it may have been done in biblical and even medieval times, it no means justifies it as good or resisting arranged marriages as bad.

As for drug her mom, I don't even think Merida knew that magic dessert did other than help change things. Besides, Merida WAS willing to actually go along with one of the arranged marriages in order to fix things but her own mother decided to give her a break and let her pick whom she wanted to marry. At first, the clan leaders were angry but then their sons all said that they actually agreed with the queen that arranged marriages were bad and that this "You should get to decide whom you marry for yourself." idea was a good one. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 19:43, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

Also, your argument of the men being depicted as idiots, while generally true, falls apart with the triplet brothers. They actually helped Merida and her mother out of a couple of jams and were quite crucial in helping at times. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 19:45, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

Do you think maybe it should be written to say "that in general the men are depicted as idiots" instead? --[[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 21:03, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

:Apparently, you hadn't noticed that there were three people competing for her hand in marriage, and that her mom actually DID allow her to choose between them. That was a whole lot more than Jasmine and Aurora got, anyway. And as far as the cake, when it alters her mom's state of mind, that essentially means she planned on drugging her. Either way, this acts as a better explanation than I can muster: http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2012/06/22/brave-movie-review/#comment-565161710 Though, fine, generally depicted as stupid. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 21:53, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

Just remembered that this topic was about The Princess and the Frog. Well, for my two cents, I really don't have much of a comment one way or another (I don't think Louisiana Voodoo would have made the film particularly conservative, especially when it was practiced by both good and bad people), but on the other hand, though I'll admit I haven't seen the film at all, I'm not sure how it had anti-war stuff in it (if anything, Tiana looked up to her dad, an implied World War I veteran). As far as Tiana's feminism, to be fair to her, since her dad was dead, I'm not sure her trying to run a business was indicative of feminism since, being the oldest of the family, she kind of needs to work in order to provide for her family. Besides, I'd argue that Belle from Beauty and the Beast (the animated version, not the live action remake) came across as a LOT more feminist than Tiana did DESPITE not holding a job at all. Lastly, you have to admit, it's the first feature-length Disney film to not only show a traditional wedding, but treat it in a positive manner as well (before this one, the closest we got to marriage being treated in a positive light or even shown at all is in ''Aladdin and the King of Thieves'' and possibly ''Mulan II''), so that's actually a pretty good conservative message ESPECIALLY considering the anti-traditional marriage messaging that was pushed by various Disney films since ''Beauty and the Beast'' in 1991). Of course, whether it does get moved is ultimately up to Andy Schlafly (and he might need to state exactly WHERE some of the liberal stuff is at, particularly the anti-war bit.). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 17:23, 11 December 2017 (EST)

== Just adding some thoughts. ==

I believe that the movie That's Way I Am should be added to this list. It seems OK at first, but it completely goes backwards off tracks from the main plot to shoehorn in the [[Homosexual Agenda]], and shows the only Christian, right-wing characters as backwards bigots who have raised bullies. Ultimately it promotes [[Liberal Censorship|censorship]] and [[Homosexuality|immorality]]. Please respond with your thoughts.[[User:ILOVEJESUS2|ILOVEJESUS2]] ([[User talk:ILOVEJESUS2|talk]]) 20:58, 9 September 2016 (EDT)
:I have never heard of the movie, but if it is clearly a liberal movie, feel free to add it. I recommend adding sources, though. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:51, 9 September 2016 (EDT)

== "Spare Parts" should not be here. ==

In my opinion, the film "Spare Parts" should not be here. It shows a conservative moral of a hard-working underdog, underfunded team facing problems beating well-funded college professional teams.
:Be bold.[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 13:16, 23 September 2016 (EDT)

== Should we really have a debatable if liberal section? ==

Should we really have a list of those films that are debatable if liberal, which is the same list as those on the debatable of conservative? There are some really great and popular films, on that list such as Back to The Future, Jaws, Mrs. Doubtfire, Scarface, Star Wars, which are all beloved classics, (some of them were recently removed from the other list those). But don’t think we should have a duplicate list, on two different pages. It is like saying when it’s on the greatest conservative films list these films are the best except for a couple flaws, but to also have it here it like saying, these films are the worst except for a couple of good aspects. Every film has it good aspect and bad aspects, no film is perfect. Also some of these films on this list are not here because there debatable if conservative or liberal. Such as Grease it is listed here because it’s debatable or not if it has enough conservative aspects to be conservative such as it says “Some conservative messages and no feminism or other political correctness; mocks public school and even television during the 1950s. Followed in 1982 by a much panned sequel (Grease 2).” That should not appear on a list that debatable if liberal. (Unless you are talking about its panned sequel, but that is whole different movie, and should appear separately). I suggest we remove that part of the list, or at least make some changes. --[[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 18:38, 21 February 2017 (EST)

:It doesn't matter whether the movies are popular or not, that doesn't put them above scrutiny. While certain movies may be seen as beloved classics, like Star Wars, that doesn't mean that the creators didn't deliberately put liberal elements in them (and George Lucas absolutely did make the Ewoks analogous to the Vietcong, he's said so more than once). As Ben Shapiro says in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjMYCnI5kz0| this video] "By all means, enjoy television. I do! But remember, the people making Television don't merely want to entertain you, they want to influence you. They want you to think like they think." The same is true for movie makers. You need only look at things the movie makers have said about their creations. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 09:48, 22 December 2018 (EST)

::Heck, not just the Ewoks. If the 1973 development notes and ''How Star Wars Conquered the Universe'' is to be believed, he even based the Rebel Alliance itself on the Vietcong and North Vietnamese army. And don't get me started on Beauty and the Beast, where it's made very clear from Jeffrey Katzenberg and especially Linda Woolverton and Don Hahn that the film was trying to push the feminist agenda. And yes, if any movie has writers deliberately trying to implement liberal values, we DO have to note it. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 10:19, 22 December 2018 (EST)

:::A lot of these things are not self-evident to a lot of people and they go over their heads. For example, George Lucas's intentions in Return of the Jedi were definitely out of touch with the time. It was released in 1983, when everyone's mind was on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and how Americans were behind the scenes helping the rebels (who unfortunately became the Taliban). Realistically, the Battle of Endor is more analogous to that than what George Lucas intended since what he intended was based on a biased, inaccurate liberal interpretation of the Vietnam War. The thing is though that many, if not most people apply "Death of The Author" when interpreting these movies which often results in them not seeing the liberal elements in them (except they don't do the same for the rare movies made by conservative creators with a conservative motive behind them). [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 10:40, 22 December 2018 (EST)

::::Well, to be fair, Osama bin Laden's group was independent of our funding if the 9/11 Commission Report is to be believed. Besides, apparently Lucas' boasting about the Ewoks' inspiration at the very least was common-knowledge enough even back then that Richard Nixon explicitly referenced that in his book No More Vietnams in 1985. And as far as "death of the author", I want to believe that, but unfortunately, I'm not sure if such can be applied in this case, especially not after the Prequel Trilogy where Lucas didn't even attempt to hide his leftist sympathies in the movie (and besides, I've already seen how death of the author is a failed concept after Hideo Kojima had [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usYtK3d2ydk two guys gushing over Che Guevara in ''Peace Walker''] despite them not being the types, either in that game or, heck, prior game appearances from them, ever indicating they were the type to worship such garbage (oh, and one of them was idolized as basically being George Washington by one of his sons in one of the prior games, and said son [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duNhyvsEqVY certainly idolized the latter].). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 11:20, 22 December 2018 (EST)

:::::The thing is, a lot of people who make the movies have some of the right ideas, but apply them to the wrong people. I already mentioned how the Empire from Star Wars was more realistically analogous to the Soviet Union, but also Palpatine from the prequel trilogy was more analogous to how Hitler came to power by slowly chipping away at German Democracy and consolidating power. Also, think about how much more Barack Obama consolidated power with his executive orders (which liberals who protested the Patriot Act ignored). And then there's Metal Gear Solid and the "patriots." There really are people like that, except it's the Deep State and the Media-Entertainment Complex, not the Military-Industrial complex as Kojima asserts. Ironically, the Big Boss antagonist from the original Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2 was actually more like the REAL Che Guevara. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 11:58, 22 December 2018 (EST)

::::::Yeah, I'm still not too sure about that. Lucas did imply that the Old Republic was analogous to Robespierre's France, after all (I believe his exact words were to the effect of "Why did France after they got rid of the king and that whole system turn around and give it to Napoleon?", and that was during the 2005 Cannes Film Festival), and that was closer to how Nazi Germany was like (and he also said in an interview with Charlie Rose that he thought Soviet film production had more "artistic freedom", as in, the same film production stuff that if you get on the leader's bad side you get shot, even if you did what he asked, heck, even if he actually LIKES your works as Shteyman learned the hard way, if The Death of Stalin is to be believed, is somehow better than the Hollywood system which, while having risks of losing money if you fail, at least doesn't land you with a bullet in your head). Not to mention, Palpatine's rise to power isn't even close to being similar to Nazi Germany. Maybe if the Republic had been forced to pay reparations during a prior war that they lost, and Palpatine had a ragtag bunch of militant homosexual socialists basically beating up bystanders to vote for him instead of communists, and basically being about as unstable as Kylo Ren, then I'd see more similarities, but as it is, it really doesn't look even slightly similar. Also, the Expanded Universe, the old one anyways, actually mentioned that the Corporate Sector Authority was largely given free reign by the Empire, the latter expanding its territory and even was largely hands off with it being implied that actually benefitted the galactic economy, and don't get me started on the immunity spheres (none of which Nazi Germany would have allowed, let alone the Soviets. In fact, if you were to suggest such concepts to the higher ups, whether Stalin or Lenin or Khrushchev, or anyone like that, they'd probably order for you to be hauled to the gulags at best and at worst shot on sight.). If anything, the Rebels boycotting the CSA comes closer to what the Soviets would have done. And besides, apparently Lucas also insisted that Saw Gerrera be based on Che Guevara, and if the official book Star Wars and History is to be believed, Mao Zedong's concept of a People's War also formed the basis of the Rebel Alliance (and Mao was even WORSE than Stalin and the Soviets regarding carnage, let alone Hitler and the Nazis).
::::::As far as Big Boss, yeah, having looked through the MSX2 games, he really didn't come across as being like Che at all. Unlike Che, who literally had to be muzzled by Khrushchev to stop him from causing nuclear war by nuking America during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Big Boss didn't seem to even try to launch nukes. Build them, sure, but most of the world did that. Heck, Snake wasn't even sent in to stop Metal Gear in MG2 unlike the first game or later games, he was sent in to basically rescue an abducted researcher and his alternate fuel formula. And then MGS1 just retcons the whole "Third Zero" thing anyways, basically killing off any bad elements of Big Boss afterward. And besides, Big Boss had a perfect opportunity to emulate his "idol" in the second ending of Peace Walker with ZEKE and Paz's hijacking of it to basically give her the goahead to launch a nuke on the Eastern Seaboard and frame MSF, just as Che intended to do with the CMC, yet he didn't. If anything, he risked his life to stop her. If any Metal Gear character came closer to acting like Che Guevara, it was Colonel Volgin, who actually DID attempt to cause World War III and even went as far as to actually launch a nuke to do so (not to mention was pretty much a sadistic bullying coward like Che, though that being said, even HE had more honor and courage than the real Che, who died begging like a dog), or ironically enough, Hot Coldman, who also attempted to start a nuclear war. And don't get me started on how Miller was even LESS likely to be a Che fanboy than Big Boss was, and yet he somehow came across as being even more of one than him at the same time. Besides, regarding the Patriots, Kojima basically made it clear they represented America and that we were the bad guys, in his Grand Game Plan, and then we get into his condemnation of Guantanamo Bay in Ground Zeroes. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 12:23, 22 December 2018 (EST)
:::::::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Oiq9zFHHdw&t=830s This] is a typical example of people who are in serious denial about how there are in fact liberal elements in classic entertainment. Also, people who know REAL history and don't understand liberal Hollywood's extremely distorted view of history could easily miss what the filmmakers are attempting to make their movies analogous to, since it's actually not like what they really were. For example, Kojima, like so many liberals who wear those stupid Che t-shirts, has a very wrong idea of who Che Guevara really was. What Big Boss and Miller are hero-worshiping is that false strawman, not the real Che. The Hollywood liberals who advocate Socialism make Socialism look like what they think it is, but people who actually know what it really is don't see the parallel. For example, I grew up knowing what the Soviet Union and China were actually like, so I didn't get the fact that Star Trek's Federation depicts what Gene Roddenberry thought they were. The thing that I found the most bothersome was how the future was secularized under the idea of "we've outgrown such primitive superstitions." It wasn't until finding resources like Conservapedia that I learned just how off-the-rails these people are. Most laymen don't understand the overall leftist philosophy and how it has affected so many people throughout history. I think Dinesh D'souza needs to make a documentary explaining the influence of leftist ideology on Hollywood. He should call it "Commiewood" or something. I think this essay needs to have some of this kind of information in the intro explaining why this essay exists.[[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 13:21, 22 December 2018 (EST)
::::::::Yeah, that video you linked reminds me, we REALLY need to update the links on that site so that at the very least, there's a backup copy to thwart claims that we use nonexistent links. Too bad the search area of Archive.org is screwy right now, getting to a 404 error if I try to type any links in, so we actually can't do it right now (and believe me, I actually tried doing that. I don't get it, it's been screwy with intermittent periods of working since I think October).
::::::::And honestly, regarding Kojima, considering that's the same guy who not only mentioned the Katyn Forest Massacre and accurately pinned the blame on the Soviets, but also mentioned that America even before the Cuban Missile Crisis' conclusion was already planning to get rid of the Turkey silos anyway due to being rendered obsolete by nuclear subs in Metal Gear Solid 3 (which is information that's not likely to be taught at school, especially not the leftist-dominated schools), I'm doubtful he's got a "wrong idea" of what Che's like, since that would imply he was merely ignorant of the real Che. If anything, its more likely that he knows what Che's truly like, yet is DELIBERATELY pushing a false image of Che on the masses, which is even worse (almost Walter Duranty-levels worse). If he truly had been ignorant, he'd probably push the USSR as being the best thing since sliced bread like most leftists, or at least better than America (especially in MGS3). And to be fair, Roddenberry did base the Federation more on the United Nations than on the USSR and/or China, not that it really mattered since the UN was still garbage and a Trojan Horse Marxist organization from the get go, even with its more positive spin among the masses especially back then. And maybe most current Hollywood leftists are a bit ignorant about what actual socialism is like, but based on some stuff the Rebels did in various EU stuff like, I don't know, slaughtering the Imperial Palace staff in Children of the Jedi and doing a show trial for a Grand Admiral after Endor, not to mention boycotting the Corporate Sector Authority, I'd argue that Lucas at least does have some idea of what communism/socialism is actually like [he certainly was knowledgeable enough about Karl Marx to quote him if Skywalking is of any indication]. Heck, he even seemed to be fully aware of the Vietcong being a terrorist group if [https://youtu.be/Nxl3IoHKQ8c this clip] from James Cameron's History of Sci-Fi on AMC is of any indication.
::::::::I also agree that D'Souza really needs to do a "Commiewood"-type film exposing the leftist dreck in that industry right now, maybe also something similar with the educational system. Of course, he probably should also do a film that exposes the true nature of the French Revolution, since that's what both the USSR and Nazi Germany tie back to directly, heck, democracy itself (since democracy and socialism are one and the same, joined at the hip since the French Revolution).
::::::::Also agree that it needs some measure of an introduction to explain why this essay is necessary. You can always ask NorthWest for help creating the intro, he was largely responsible for a similar introduction on Essay: Worst Liberal TV Shows where he tied it to the Rural Purge. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 13:57, 22 December 2018 (EST)
:::::::::Strange thing about Peace Walker though. The Russian character Vladimir Zadornov is depicted as a bad guy, and yet, despite the fact that the Soviets were in fact backing the Nicaraguan Sandanistas, the Sandanistas in the game turn against Zadornov. Very strange indeed. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 14:10, 22 December 2018 (EST)
:::::::::My understanding of liberals in the entertainment industry was that they always had good intentions but bad ideas. What you just said about Kojima sounds like he only has bad intentions all around. But what motive would a game designer have to deliberately promote a false narrative that he knows is false yet lies about it? I know that politicians do that to get elected, but game designers? [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 14:24, 22 December 2018 (EST)
::::::::::Yeah, and then Ground Zeroes just has them going back to being Soviet bloc anyways based on a comment made by Miller in the briefing files for that game, making their heel-face-turn pointless (as far as Zadornov, he may have been a villain, but the game largely treated Coldman, the CIA station chief, as even worse, even having Zadornov declare "I should have killed you when I had the chance" as well as genuinely horrified at this after Coldman started Peace Walker's false data transmission, despite that being exactly what Zadornov wanted him to do in the first place, that, and depicting America in the worst light imaginable, even by Metal Gear standards, and that series isn't exactly pro-America by any stretch [only games that come close to being pro-American by any means are Snake Eater and Portable Ops].). And as far as Kojima, yeah, he pretty much did have bad intentions all around. I heard part of the reason he created MGS2 was to act as his commentary about the Japanese Textbook controversy, with Snake's comment about showing the past in all its sordid forms in the ending implying he supported showing Japanese war crimes (put that way, I actually don't blame the Japanese at all for whitewashing their history, because if Kojima's of any indication, the ones who do want to expose the dark elements of history in Japan also tend to hate America alongside Japan as well and, well, any government or national sovereignty, not have any good aims for exposing bad elements of history.), and he admitted that MGS2's themes were about postmodernism (even though such was pretty much discredited). As far as what motive, probably the same motive that had Sartre claim that the USSR was full of freedom of expression or that Che Guevara is the most complete being of the century despite his obviously knowing full well such weren't the case, or heck, what motivated Walter Cronkite or Walter Duranty to lie about the Tet Offensive and the Soviet persecutions in the thirties, respectively, to push his left wing agenda on everyone regardless and hope he gets new followers. And I don't know about entertainment industry liberals having good intentions. Based on what George Lucas said in that AMC interview with James Cameron that I linked to, he apparently was aware at the time that the Vietcong were in fact a terror group, yet STILL supported them and made them out to be heroes in his films. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 15:57, 22 December 2018 (EST)
::::::::::BTW, since you indicated you are a gamer, think you can help out with [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Video Games]] and/or [[Essay:Worst Liberal Video Games]] and add in some entries and/or expand/move around already existing entries? [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:02, 22 December 2018 (EST)

:::::::::::I've already made several edits to the Video Games essay pages. By the way, there is a real life equivalent to the "Patriots'" "GW" system, it's called the "trust and safety councils" that govern websites like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. I wanted to point out how Kojima's "Patriots" were an example of liberal projection. I think you can at least take solace in the fact that Kojima has been fired from Konami. If all you said is true, then Lucas and Kojima are some very evil people, and lots of fawning fanboys are putting their blinders on. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 16:28, 23 December 2018 (EST)

Also I have decided to remove some movies that were on the section, for instance as I said before Labyrinth is only debatable if its pro-family, it in no way is anti-family, as for Grease its should only be on the debatable for conservative list because it contains some conservative ideas, but not a lot, and in no way is it liberal. I also removed Zulu and Blood Freak, because they too do not belong on this list. Also, I moved "Chicken Run" back to the worst liberal section, because even though, it has a feminist villain, it also has a feminist heroic leader, so in a way, it neutralizes it. Also, I moved Jurassic World to debatable.
--[[User:GrantN|GrantN]] ([[User talk:GrantN|talk]]) 16:58, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

==Hunchback of Notre Dame==
Except for the thing about the Gargoyle and Djali (not to mention Frollo hitting on Esme a little too much for a G-rated film), I actually think your claims are false. The Archdeacon is good and saved Quasi from Frollo and saved Esme by letting her claim sanctuary and tried to save both Esme and Quasi later, only to be stopped by Frollo and his men. Frollo is basically a self-righteous Pharisee. As for Esme, despite being looked down by Frollo's government, she is very noble in that, unlike liberals, she doesn't feel she is owed anything other than decency (she says "I ask for nothing, I can get by, but I know that there are others less lucky than I."). As for Captain Pheobus, he risks execution by his leader Frollo for disobeying a tyrannical order to burn the innocent alive. Also, Quasi doesn't even kill Frollo (he could have dropped him when he was hanging onto his cloak and Quasi was already in danger of falling and had learned that Frollo was responsible for his mother's death, yet he hung on and Frollo ended up doing himself in. Hardly a liberal movie. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 00:21, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
:Not really. Yes, the Archdeacon was depicted in a good light, so in that sense, it promotes Christianity a bit more than, say, Beauty and the Beast (which depicts pretty much all the Christians in a very bad light in the village, while Belle, who is implied a few times to be an atheist or at the very least an agnostic, being depicted as a moral figure.). However, it isn't by much, as even ignoring Frollo (and I wouldn't even say he's THAT bad, anyway: Maleficent from the original Sleeping Beauty was a whole lot worse), Christianity as a whole is depicted in a very bad light (don't forget the whole Parisian mob scene with the Feast of Fools, or how the parishman, NOT Frollo, but another parishioner of Notre Dame, was pretty cold to Quasimodo. And I might as well add that the whole scene with the Parisian people was if anything even WORSE in the Disney film than in the book, where the latter was simply them dealing corporate punishment, while in the former, they just did it out of sadism.). And let's not forget that it was also controversially received and the Catholic Church actually had some irritation at the film for how it was depicted. Besides, it definitely can't qualify as a conservative film when they have one of the gargoyles explicitly lusting after Djali (both of whom are male) and being treated positively for it. The Castlevania animated series on Netflix right now does a FAR better job promoting Christianity than Hunchback did. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 08:01, 16 September 2017 (EDT)

== Possible movie to add ==

Based on [http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/09/15/mother-review-tedious-attack-christians-defense-mother-earth/ this Breitbart review], we should consider adding ''Mother!'' to this essay. As someone not very familiar with this movie, I won't do it myself. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:40, 19 September 2017 (EDT)

While I agree that the live action one was a gay propaganda film, Gaston is by no means conservative or admirable. He may be good but he's flat out arrogant. Because he does not get his way, he was going to try and threaten to throw Belle's father in the loony bin as blackmail to force Belle to marry him. The Beast, near the end, was willing to let her go because he loved her, even though her leaving could mean the last petal would fall before the spell would be broken. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 00:29, 6 October 2017 (EDT)

I'm going to be blunt here, several on here are only on here for perceived anti-military, anti-capitalist, pro-feminist, anti-hunter, supporting evolution, etc, themes. If we applied the inconsistent logic here, we'd have to list a lot of otherwise conservative films as being liberal just because of that. I honestly think we're doing what we accuse the Leftists of: going so far that some things are viewed as "microagressions". [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 00:41, 6 October 2017 (EDT)

I'm not saying some shouldn't be on here but others have no business being listed here. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 00:41, 6 October 2017 (EDT)

:Look, Mongoose, a lot of the films you're mentioning have those liberal themes present in a very blatant manner. It's not "perceived", especially not when the actual creators of the films make it extremely clear that it is meant to be that. And as far as Gaston, another editor mentioned him being conservative and hard-working. I really can't speak regarding what Gaston's politics are (and personally, regardless of politics, I consider anyone who does something like threatening a man they knew to be innocent into the insane asylum to force that man's daughter's hand in marriage to be scum), but I do know that Beauty and the Beast has a definite pro-feminist theme, considering even Linda Woolverton made it explicitly clear it was meant to push the feminist agenda (as if the fact that the overall story strongly demonized the concept of marriage via Belle hating the concept, not just marrying Gaston, but even the possibility of being a wife, or how the only three girls who have any interest in marriage are depicted as dumb blondes wasn't blatant enough). And it also doesn't help that it actually promoted premarital relations and even infidelity in a positive light in the form of Lumiere. Oh, and another thing, Belle was actually acting just as arrogant if not even moreso in the original film. And I don't think it's a coincidence that Belle, who doesn't even imply that she believes in God at all, is considered by the story to be a grand moral figure, while the other villagers, who based on the lyrics are devoted Christians, are depicted as idiotic monsters. And Star Wars, George Lucas made it very clear that it was meant to promote the Vietcong, not to mention the Prequel Trilogy outright demonized the concept of even having a military, and the Jedi even promoted moral relativism twice. Besides, that's why we have a "debatable whether liberal" section. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 08:09, 6 October 2017 (EDT)

I am wondering, should we also have a conservative movie section? [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 19:45, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

:We technically already have that section, it's called "Debatable whether Liberal." [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 19:58, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

Also, if you are going to cite that it promotes feminism because the director or so-and-so on set said so, then could we at least ask for citations or something? I didn't even know that Beauty and the Beast was MEANT to push feminism. Information like that might be helpful to people. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 21:33, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

BTW, I thought of adding the movie "The Big Green" to the list of leans liberal. The reason being is that one of the characters makes some comment about "Reaganomics" being responsible for the bad local economy and also one of the soccer players was an anchor baby and one of the coaches, who was a sheriff, was able to eventually get him and his illegal mother a way to stay. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 21:33, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

:Okay, next time you try to add in a post, try not to delete a prior post when adding it in, please? Anyways, I'll definitely make sure I supply any citations for that when I have the opportunity. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 22:07, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

I've noticed an interesting trend. Almost all of the ones rated conservative are at least two decades old while loads of the ones on here as liberal are less than two decades old and loads are a decade old or less. It seems that we're running out of new conservative films. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 02:38, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

:Well, that's what we're gonna get with Hollywood choosing their leftist politics over, you know, actually trying to tell a good story. Still... there's still some films made today that are definitely conservative. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:12, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

==About Mulan==
I think it was the Xuans or something, not the Huns. It may have just been pronounced that way because the X may be pronounced like an H in Chinese or something. Also, it's debatable that it's liberal because Mulan does all of that to save her father's life. He wouldn't have made it due to his older age. She was at least doing some honor to her father by risking her life to protect him from going off to a war she didn't think he'd live through. Also, she did risk her neck to save her country despite being looked down upon for being a woman. (That's actually counter Leftist in a way because the Leftist whine about being discriminated against and support policies that hurt their country. Mulan, on the other hand, had no guarantee that she would get honored for what she did. In fact, she knew quite well she could be executed for pretending to be a fictional brother of hers. Also, the character Mulan is a Chinese legend. On the other hand, the ancestor worship was a form of paganism, but, on the other hand, probably was historically accurate. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 19:30, 13 October 2017 (EDT)
:Most of that (save for maybe the Xuans) was already mentioned when I moved Mulan to the Debatable whether Liberal section. I also noted that it was actually very pro-Military as a Conservative point. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 21:55, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

== Das Boot? Anti-American? ==

Whoever posted Das Boot on this page obviously didn't see the same movie I saw. Das Boot is, literally, the greatest war film ever made, and it is not anti-American, or pro-American, or pro-Nazi. If anything, it is anti-war, but being anti-war is not exclusive to the Liberal camp. I'm opposed to war, and I'm a former soldier, but I'm for American victory, but not for war for the sake of war. Liberals are not anti-war, but anti-American victory.

Das Boot is about a bunch of Germans who have to get into a steel tube that can submerge underwater, and have to survive a voyage in 1942, and by this year of the war it really sucks being aboard a German submarine because the Allies are getting much better at defending their convoys. It starts out with the sailors and officers at a party getting completely drunk, which is important, because these guys know the hell that awaits them. These guys are about to go aboard the next day aboard a machine where, for the next several weeks they have to live in very tight, confined spaces, for most of them not seeing the sun so it bleaches out their skin for lack of Vitamin D. The film vividly captures this in all it's disgusting glory, from the scene where they have to eradicate the crabs that stowed-away (and not the sea-going crabs), to the scene where the officers are picking out the mold that has appeared on their bread so they can eat!

There is one dedicated Nazi aboard, and he's from Mexico, but he only has one scene where he talks about believing in the Nazi cause, and it's promptly followed by the captain ordering the song "It's a Long Way to Tipperary" to be played aboard the ship. This is not interpreted as hyperbolic patriotism under the belief they'll end up shopping in Piccadilly when the war is over, but a way to let off some steam and even to admire their enemies. The captain even criticizes the regime a bit, wondering where the air cover they're supposed to get from Hermann Goering. Where are their fleets screening the North Sea?

We get into the tedium of operating the sub, with a couple of incidents where the captain is frustrated that he can't engage enemy fleets to support other sub attacks because they're just too damn far away. They can hear them, but the sub only moves at roughly 10 knots on a good day if they're not submerged, even slower when they are because they're usually on batteries. When they do initially engage, they are chased away by a destroyer, and this is one of the few WWII sub films I know of where the sub doesn't retaliate against the destroyers because fighting destroyers is extremely difficult even if everything is going well for you because destroyers move and turn very fast. When they do manage to sink a ship, they're shocked to learn that the convoy didn't send anyone out to help these poor guys, and in a tragic scene, the sub has to back away from survivors who are trying to swim to them, and they can't take them on because to do so would be detrimental to them; too many guys aboard could affect if they can even submerge, affect their food stores, and other issues, so they have to let them drown.

Then they have orders to go through the Straits of Gibraltar, which is heavily defended, in order to be able to operate in the Mediterranean. Getting those orders is rough on morale, because everyone knows it's practically a suicide mission. When they make the attempt, we get one of the most horrendously riveting scenes in all filmdom; the depth-charging scene, which lasts several freakin' minutes. If you've never seen this before, you're wondering when this is going to end! This is intentional because the film's screenplay was written by a former German sub-commander, and he wanted you to know what it was like for these guys. They bottom out, and are so far deep it's amazing they weren't crushed by the water pressure. Are they going to survive? Are they ever going to get the sub to surface again? They have to put the crew on O2 and get most of them to sleep in order that they do not use up their remaining O2. When they do surface, you just don't care that they're Germans, but just Men who are trying to survive!!

And that's what real war is like. Once, I was stupid enough to ask my grandfather, who survived Guadalcanal and Okinawa, what the worst thing to happen to America was, and I thought he'd say the 60's or something, and he said WWII. When I said, "Why? We won," he looked at me as if I said something stupid, and he replied, "Son, you win a war like you win an earthquake." When you're in it, you've got ONE thing on your mind - survival. Sure, you want to succeed at missions, because, like the captain of the sub in Das Boot, you want that success to contribute to victory in the hope that the war will end! Nobody wants to die, and for those who end up dying on the battlefield we hope that their deaths were not in vain. But, sometimes, in real war, they are, because sometimes it doesn't matter if you succeed at your mission or not, as in the case of Das Boot at the end. We can admire an enemy's valour and still be patriots.

==xXx: Return of Xander Cage==
My father watched this film and he believes that it depicts the american military as bad.
I seriously believe that the movie is indeed some liberal crap. [[User:ZackG|ZackG]] ([[User talk:ZackG|talk]])

== Star Wars: The Last Jedi ==

I would recommend including Star Wars: The Last Jedi to the list. Whilst it was well received by film critics, It only got a [https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_last_jedi/ 46% audience satisfaction]. A suspected major reason for this is fans being disillusioned by the massive inclusion of [http://redpilltimes.com/feminist-sjw-garbage-the-last-jedi-worst-film-of-2017/ SJW propaganda] in the franchise. This caused fans to [https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/968916/Star-Wars-Solo-FLOP-fan-BOYCOTT-Will-Disney-FIRE-Kathleen-Kennedy-Last-Jedi-box-office boycott] Solo, and as a result Solo was a box office flop. --[[User:RWRW|RWRW]] ([[User talk:RWRW|talk]]) 09:47, 21 July 2018 (EDT)
:Well, Star Wars as a whole definitely is debatable regarding its politics (the Prequel Trilogy and Return of the Jedi definitely came closer to being left-wing in its outlook at least), but yeah, it pushed left-wing elements to a far greater extent, so we probably should note that bit. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:50, 21 July 2018 (EDT)
::I included a small bit about The Last Jedi in the essay. I think it is a shame that this has happened. I used to love Star Wars when it was all about plot, but now it is all about pushing the SJW agenda. This really is a low point in the Star Wars franchise and there is talk about boycotting episode 9 which should be interesting.--[[User:RWRW|RWRW]] ([[User talk:RWRW|talk]]) 21:25, 21 July 2018 (EDT)

== ''Call Me by Your Name'' ==

If ''Call Me by Your Name'' depicts "pedophilia", then so does ''[[Dirty Dancing]]'' (1987), in which the ages of the two lovers is exactly the same. [[User:FredJ|FredJ]] ([[User talk:FredJ|talk]]) 17:58, 18 September 2018 (EDT)

== The Terminator movies ==

The first movie was fairly neutral, but Terminator 2 had some anti-war Propaganda. Genisys and Dark Fate really push Feminism. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 18:33, 25 July 2019 (EDT)

== Made a suggestion to add two movies as possibly liberal ==

There was definitely a more feminist agenda in Incredibles 2, and likely, though, unlike Incredibles 2, I haven't seen it and can only rely on heresay, but have heard it from MANY sources, that Toy Story 4 did as well. Plus Toy Story 4, like Finding Dory, had another covert lesbian couple in the background, though unlike Finding Dory, Disney didn't even TRY to deny it this time. Also, some may wonder if Forky, a spork, and who has a rainbow painted on his feet, is supposed to be a covert reference to transgenderism.

[[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 15:11, 17 August 2019 (EDT)
:Wait, you mean Disney's actually CONFIRMED, directly, that the two ladies were a lesbian couple? Could you give a source? [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:17, 17 August 2019 (EDT)

I cannot say they confirmed it, rather they didn't try and deny it. For instance, I now believe there was a lesbian couple in Finding Dory. However, when asked about it, Disney basically neither confirmed or denied, but told the Guardian "They can be whatever you want them to be": https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jun/09/finding-dory-lesbian-couple-disney-gay-characters

However, when some LGBT groups praised the lesbian couple snuck into Toy Story 4, in much the way that they did in Finding Dory where you almost had to be looking for it to find it, Disney did NOT bother to try and deny the claims in any way this time: https://www.gaytimes.co.uk/culture/123834/toy-story-4-has-a-small-but-important-moment-of-lgbtq-representation/

The Gay Times article that mentioned the Lesbian Couple in Finding Dory says that Disney and Ellen Degeneres denied it as a certain thing. However, as far as I can find, I can find nothing from Disney denying the allegations this time around.

Furthermore, though there is nothing other than circumstantial evidence on this, as the character is clearly identified as a "he" here, one must wonder if the character Forky, who is actually a spork (which I heard is a transgender symbol) and who also has a rainbow (a known LGBT symbol on his foot) is also a subtle reference to transgenderism.

[[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 14:54, 26 August 2019 (EDT)

First, Toy Story 4 is racist, now it promotes TRANSGENDERISM?! I give up. [[User:BernieandTrumpFan|BernieandTrumpFan]] ([[User talk:BernieandTrumpFan|talk]])

I don't think it's racist. However, some sources are saying it's feminist. [[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]])

== South Park Movie ==

I'm removing this one from the list. Any objections?

Just out of curiosity, how come it's being removed? --[[User:The Autistic Patriot|The Autistic Patriot]] ([[User talk:The Autistic Patriot|talk]]) 13:03, 9 September 2019 (EDT)

The South Park creators are libertarians. They recently came out as "Republicans." In attempting to create and release this movie, they faced liberal censorship. The MPAA was worried people might be ''offended''. I think the better question to ask would be, "Why was it put here in the first place?" ---BernieandTrumpFan

Oh, okay. I almost forgot about them having been libertarian. --[[User:The Autistic Patriot|The Autistic Patriot]] ([[User talk:The Autistic Patriot|talk]]) 16:56, 9 September 2019 (EDT)

==Angry Birds 2 is liberal==

New American, a conservative source, has stated that they push "climate change" and are even partnering with the UN to push the climate agenda.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/33297-angry-birds-movie-2-global-warming-propaganda-for-tots
[[User:PatriotMongoose|PatriotMongoose]] ([[User talk:PatriotMongoose|talk]]) 15:25, 9 September 2019 (EDT)

== Suggestions ==

The Exorcist:
Uncut version features a blasphemous and pedophilia scene featuring child actor Linda Blair pleasuring herself with a crucifix.

Hellraiser franchise
Demonic themes, torture, graphic murder.

Ichi the Killer
Several themes of nihilism, rape, torture, BDSM, crime.

Battle Royale
Anti-government, banned from release in the U.S. after columbine.

Audition
Pro feminism, nihilism, torture.

Oldboy
Revenge motif, character is a drunken adulterer, incest.

Spawn
Main character goes to hell and is revived by Satan to be a footsoldier and is treated as the good guy.

House of 1000 Corpses franchise
Paints southerners as evil satanists. Several instances of torture, blasphemy, rape, and other unspeakable actions.

Lost Highway
Nihilistic film liked by columbine shooters.

Harry Potter franchise
Pro witchcraft, feminism, homosexuality.

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre
Paints slaughterhouse workers as evil cannibals.

Fight Club
Overtly nihilist pro anarchy terrorist film.

*Regarding Exorcist, was that BEFORE or DURING her demonic possession? Because if it's the latter, I don't think that was a promotion of blasphemy (and if anything showcased something was deeply wrong about her). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 22:08, 14 November 2019 (EST)

== Add a disclaimer? ==

I think there should be a disclaimer or warning at the top of all "Worst Liberal..." articles saying something to the effect of "We do not care if a movie/TV show/video game is considered a 'classic' or that it's a famous movie/TV show/video game that many people have nostalgia for. If it has liberal elements and/or the creators of a certain movie/TV show/video game had some liberal agenda in mind when they crafted the story's narrative, we will call it out. Just because people love movies doesn't mean that Hollywood isn't trying to push a liberal agenda with them." As an example, many people love the Star Wars movies, but that doesn't change the fact that the concept of "the Force" is based on Pantheism, which is un-biblical. It also does not change the fact that George Lucas based the Ewoks on the Vietcong based on his slanted misunderstanding of the Vietnam War. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 19:10, 18 May 2020 (EDT)

:Sounds okay to me - after all, there is a similar header in the Worst Liberal TV Shows essay article. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 06:22, 19 May 2020 (EDT)
::Speaking of Worst Liberal TV Shows' header, was there any similar event in movies to the Rural Purge in there? We might need to note that.
::And agreed, we definitely need to post that up top, especially when liberal outlets are rather infamous for disguising their liberal agenda with more conservative traits. I'm hesitant to say George Lucas "misunderstood" the Vietnam War, though only because he made it pretty clear he knew the Vietcong were a terrorist group when he modeled the "heroes" of Star Wars after them when asked by James Cameron, back at the time he was filming it. Meaning he KNEW he was modeling the Rebels on genuine bad guys and not good people, yet did so anyway. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:36, 19 May 2020 (EDT)

== 2012 ==
The movie "2012" should be added to this list. It promotes a liberal inclusive agenda, and makes Conservative politicians the antagonists. [[User:MAGAViking|MAGAViking]] ([[User talk:MAGAViking|talk]]) 21:25, 24 October 2020 (EDT)

== dividing ==

I suggest to divide movies of this article by decades --[[User:Alex Kosh|Alex Kosh]] ([[User talk:Alex Kosh|talk]]) 18:28, 23 January 2021 (EST)

== Princess Mononoke ==

I'm not really expecting this to lead to a change; I just wanted to put out there I don't think Princess Mononoke belongs on this list. It's described as being a 'feminist film on steroids'. The film mainly focuses on Ashitaka (the male lead) trying to bring peace between the village and nature. The female lead, San, though she was a strong fighter, mainly wanted to kill Lady Eboshi. She was portrayed as being in the wrong for that, and Ashitaka stopped her. San and Ashitaka 'saved the day' together, which I feel also makes it non-feminist. The essay also says that the miners were the villains of the movie. The point of the movie was that neither side was completely right or wrong, good or evil. A behind the scenes feature on the home video even says there is no black and white villain. {{unsigned|JustinRM}}
:Oh, you mean it was a study in [[moral relativism]]. Ok. Got that. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 00:12, 19 May 2021 (EDT)
::Well, I wouldn't say that either. Ashitaka is shown to be a strong and virtuous man who wants to bring peace to two sides at war with each other. He's the one people are meant to root for over the main females, San and Eboshi. Eboshi also lost an arm because of her reckless leadership, which I feel is non-feminist. Also, the film has an anti-demon message to it. Ashitaka got injured protecting his village from a demonic creature, and then had to purge its effects from his body before it killed him. {{unsigned|JustinRM}}
:::So tell me who the producers are and that might help make sense of all this. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 01:10, 21 May 2021 (EDT)
::::I can't speak for Toshio Suzuki, the producer of the film, but I DO have a lot to say about the writer/director of the film, Hayao Miyazaki. [http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/feb/17/studio-ghibli-hayao-miyazaki-charlie-hebdo-mistake He basically criticized Charlie Hebdo for speaking out against the Quran], for example. [https://floatingintobliss.wordpress.com/2019/12/31/miyazakis-marxism-the-politics-of-animes-legendary-director/ He apparently was also a huge Marxist], at least until the USSR's collapse. [http://herocomplex.latimes.com/animation/comiccon-miyazaki-breaks-his-boycott-of-us/ And he spoke out against the Iraq War, even refused to visit America to accept an Academy award because, and I quote, "I didn't want to visit a country that was bombing Iraq."] [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 20:15, 22 May 2021 (EDT)

== note on sources for Alien ==

A.E. Van Vogt sued the producers of Alien for similarities to his story "Black Destroyer" and the producers ended up settling for $50,000. I would put this into the text, but I got this from Wikipedia and they reference a book I don't have a copy of.

Secession

2021-10-17T22:54:07Z

AlChesapeake: /* United States */ noted that the pledge of allegiance states that the US is indivisible

'''Secession''' is the formal withdraw of a smaller political entity from a larger one, usually a [[nation-state]]. It is separated from [[revolution]] in that it doesn’t necessarily involve a change in the form of [[government]]. In the history of the [[United States]], the most prominent example is the secession of eleven Southern states in late 1860 and 1861, but there were threats from [[New England]] in the early 1800s. Recently secession has been talked about in New England (mostly [[Vermont]] and [[New Hampshire]]), [[California]], [[Alaska]], [[the South]], and [[Hawaii]]. These movements are small but are gaining some traction. Outside of the United States, [[Quebec]] and [[Alberta]] have considered secession from [[Canada]], and history is full of examples of secession.

== History ==

== United States ==

=== Hartford Convention ===
The [[Hartford Convention]] met from December 15, 1814 to January 4, 1815 to discuss the New England states’ qualms with “[[James Madison|Mr. Madison]]'s War” (the [[War of 1812]]). The New Englanders were upset with the wars interference of trade with [[England]] and thought it an ill-thought out attempt to gain Canada. The Hartford Convention recommended 7 amendments to the Constitution and threatened secession if the demands weren't acted upon.

=== Texas ===
In 1835, after offenses by the [[Mexican]] government, the foreign settlers in [[Texas]] (primarily Americans) decided to rebel against the Mexican Government. During the siege of [[The Alamo]] the Texans decided that it was time to declare their independence. After the [[Texas War of Independence]] Texas became a Republic and eventually joined the United States in 1845. See [[Jefferson State]].

=== The South ===
The most famous example in US History of secession is the Southern Secession of late 1860 and 1861. After the election of [[Abraham Lincoln]] the South felt her power threatened from Northern [[Republicans]]. After their secession they formed the [[Confederate States of America]]. After 4 years of gruesome fighting in the [[American Civil War]] the South lost her independence.

== Modern Examples ==

=== Canada ===
Quebec, because of her [[France|French]] heritage, has talked of secession from Canada. The Canadian Supreme Court decided that Quebec and all other Canadian provinces have the right to secede. Alberta has also considered secession in recent years.

=== United States ===
Even though the South lost their war for independence the United States has been the sight of recent calls for secession. In New England many liberals have made calls of secession from the US Government because of the [[Iraq War]] and other reasons. The South has had some calls for secession from groups such as the League of the South. Other states that have secession movements are [[Alaska]], [[Hawaii]], and [[California]].

Note that the [[Pledge of Allegiance]] states that the United States is "indivisible," so support for secession is inconsistent with that pledge.

=== Eastern Europe ===
In 2006, [[Montenegro]] peacefully seceded from [[Serbia]].

==See also==
* [[Jefferson State]]
* [[New York Secession]]
* [[American Redoubt]]
* [[Free State Project]] - libertarian relocation to New Hampshire
* [[Two hundred thousand for Vermont]] A movement to make Vermont a red state
* [[US 51st State, Partition, Secession and Autonomous Regions proposals]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.secession.net/]
* [http://www.secessionist.us/]

== References ==
* Graham, John R. ''A Constitutional History of Secession'' Pelican Publishing (2002)

<references/>

[[Category:Government]]
[[Category:United States Political Movements]]
[[Category:Political Movements]]
[[Category:Strategic Relocation]]
[[Category:American Redoubt]]

Talk:Infinity denial

2021-09-29T00:26:30Z

AlChesapeake: thoughts on mathematical tools

Better to add cites to a new entry rather than tag it with discouraging banner. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:33, July 30, 2021 (EDT)
:Andy, that article was written by you, which means it's your responsibility to add citations as needed for the assertions you made. That's one of the numerous examples of you not citing your statements as needed. My first edit to CP was undid because I didn't add a citation to it. There shouldn't be double standards (which is clearly a liberal trait) here. —[[User:Liberaltears|<code>'''LT'''</code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!]]''''' Friday, 17:47, July 30, 2021 (EDT)

In the inductive proof that pi contains pi, it starts with 1, then adds one, adds one, etc. It's always a real number plus a real number, and that always equals a real number, not infinity. If something is true for any real number, no matter how large, doesn't mean that it's true for infinity. I wonder if the problem is that mathematical tools, as they are created by humans, don't really capture infinity per se. I'm not convinced that any human mind can come close to understanding it, even if we acknowledge its existence.Mathematical tools are created by human beings. God's ability to be aware of every number - well, that's way beyond me, but it's intense to try to think about it. [[User:AlChesapeake]]''''' Tuesday, 20:24, September 28, 2021 (EDT)

Philosophy of mathematics

2021-09-27T23:35:23Z

AlChesapeake: Added Kronecker quote. http://scihi.org/leopold-kronecker/

'''Philosophy of mathematics''' is the branch of [[philosophy]] which deals with the philosophical foundations of [[mathematics]].

Some of the major viewpoints include:
*'''Platonism''': the position that mathematical objects (numbers, sets, fields, etc.) have a real existence independent from the physical world, that they are real existing immaterial objects
*'''Formalism''': the position that mathematics is nothing more than the manipulation of symbols according to formal rules; those symbols are not ascribed any ultimate existence independent of the physical universe in which they are contained
*'''Constructivism''' or '''Intuitionism''': the position that only mathematical objects that could be constructed, at least in principle, by human mathematicians, are real. ("Mathematics exists in the minds of mathematicians; so anything which cannot fit in the mind of a mathematician cannot exist in mathematics either"). This implies the rejection of some, but not necessarily all, infinite sets. Infinite sets are often permitted so long as we have a procedure which can successively ennumerate their members, e.g. the natural numbers. But, infinite sets which cannot be enumerated, such as the (classical) reals, are rejected.
*'''Countablism''': countablists reject the existence of uncountable mathematical objects; only countable mathematical objects really exist. Aleph-null is the largest cardinal. Most commonly this is a consequence of a constructivist or intutistionist position
*'''Finitism''': finitists reject the existence of infinite mathematical objects; only finite mathematical objects really exist.
*'''Ultrafinitism''': ultrafinitists go beyond finitism, to reject the existence of mathematical objects which while finite are so large as to be impossible for any human being to think about. According to classical mathematics, there are infinitely many natural numbers, almost all of whom are so large that no mathematician will ever think of or refer to them individually. Almost all of them are so large that there is not enough space in the universe to even refer to them in any conceivable notation. Ultrafinitists deny that such finite numbers exist.
*'''[[Paraconsistent logic|Paraconsistency]]''': paraconsistent logic and mathematics rejects the principle that every proposition must be either true or false, but not both—it posits that there are propositions that are both true and false simultaneously. Thus, for example, there may be some set, which both does and does not contain a given element. (This is proposed as an alternative solution to paradoxes such as [[Russell's paradox]] and the [[liar paradox]].)
Constructivism, finitism and ultrafinitism generally entail a rejection of much of classical mathematics; so, they tend not to be popular with practicising mathematicians. However, there are alternative systems of mathematics which have been worked out based on their assumptions—in particular, constructivist or intuitionistic mathematics, is a significant and continuing area of mathematical research. Some of its formulations (e.g. intuitionistic logics) have been found useful by those who don't necessarily agree with the philosophical theories which motivated their development.

"God made the integers, all else is the work of man." - a near-Formalist viewpoint from Leopold Kronecker (1823 to 1891).

[[Category:Philosophy]][[Category:Mathematics]]

Talk:Essay:pi contains pi

2021-09-18T14:49:48Z

AlChesapeake: does "infinite" mean "endless?"

Talk:Abstract algebra

2021-09-07T00:13:14Z

AlChesapeake: added username

Expanded this section - it's true that abstract algebra is a branch of mathematics, but it's more narrow than that. Removed [[linear algebra]] as part of the definition. I haven't seen linear algebra being defined as an algebraic structure. There are matrix algebras that are algebraic structures, but "linear algebra" doesn't seem to fit. I won't argue too much though about it if someone thinks it does belong because it is used in the abstract algebra context.[[User:AlChesapeake|AlChesapeake]]([[User talk:AlChesapeake|talk]]) 20:10, September 6, 2021 (EDT)

Talk:Abstract algebra

2021-09-07T00:12:00Z

AlChesapeake:

Expanded this section - it's true that abstract algebra is a branch of mathematics, but it's more narrow than that. Removed [[linear algebra]] as part of the definition. I haven't seen linear algebra being defined as an algebraic structure. There are matrix algebras that are algebraic structures, but "linear algebra" doesn't seem to fit. I won't argue too much though about it if someone thinks it does belong because it is used in the abstract algebra context.([[AlChesapeake]][[User talk:AlChesapeake|talk]]) 20:10, September 6, 2021 (EDT)

Talk:Abstract algebra

2021-09-07T00:11:07Z

AlChesapeake: explained changes to main article

Expanded this section - it's true that abstract algebra is a branch of mathematics, but it's more narrow than that. Removed [[linear algebra]] as part of the definition. I haven't seen linear algebra being defined as an algebraic structure. There are matrix algebras that are algebraic structures, but "linear algebra" doesn't seem to fit. I won't argue too much though about it if someone thinks it does belong because it is used in the abstract algebra context.([[User talk:AlChesapeake|talk]]) 20:10, September 6, 2021 (EDT)

Abstract algebra

2021-09-07T00:04:50Z

AlChesapeake: Expanded definition with more detail. see Talk section for change discussion

'''Abstract algebra''' is a branch of [[algebra]] that generalizes elementary algebra to include various algebraic structures. An algebraic structure is a combination of a [[set]] with one or more operations. Algebraic structures include groups (see [[group theory]]), fields, and rings amongst others. For example, elementary algebra (see [[algebra]]) is an algebraic structure consisting of the set of [[complex numbers]] with various operations, such as addition, multiplication, logarithms, etc.<ref>Pinter, Charles; A Book of Abstract Algebra, Second Edition; 1990. See [http://www2.math.umd.edu/~jcohen/402/Pinter%20Algebra.pdf]</ref>

==Notes and references==
<references/>
[[Category:Algebra]]

Talk:Pi

2021-09-06T23:26:28Z

AlChesapeake: proper math markup

Answering the question posed in the article, "As of 2002, the record is held by Yasumasa Kanada of Tokyo University at 1,241,100,000,000 digits. That result was never printed out: can you figure out why not?"

An ordinary printed page can hold about 5,000 digits.

To print 1,241,100,000,000 digits would require 248,220,000 pages, or 496,440 reams of paper. A ream of paper is the size of a large book. It would take a building the size of a city library to hold the printed output. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 23:08, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Counting the letters in the phrase "Now I wish I had a drink—alcoholic, of course" '''Does not help because it gives a wrong answer.''' it gives 3(.)141315926, it should be 3.1415926...
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:54, 15 January 2007 (EST)

*Yikes! I'm going to have to turn in my geek badge. It should be "How I want a drink--alcoholic of course." I was mixing it with "How I wish I could recollect pi easily today." Sorry. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:16, 16 January 2007 (EST)

So I'm assuming by the change back to the old version, my revision was no good. An explanation why would be nice, though. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 21:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Groan==

What was I thinking here? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pi&curid=4960&diff=71562&oldid=71280&rcid=74105]

113 '''divided into''' 355 like this:

3.14156.....
---------
113|355.00000

I had 1/pi by mistake - not even an approximation, more like an abomination. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:44, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== I like Pi ==

Pi R Squared? No they're not, Pie are round. Brownies are square. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:LOL. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:08, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

==22/7==
Besides the fact that "Pi is exactly 3!", 22/7 is also a repeating decimal.
Pi is also known as Archimedes' constant, Ludolphine, and Ludolph's Number.
Ludolph van Ceulen (Germany) spent a great deal of time calculating digits of pi. The number is engraved on his tombstone. If I were to get buried, I would have all the digits I memorized engraved on it, but I want to get cremated instead. [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 10:16, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:It is not true that Pi is exactly 3. What is your suggestion to improve the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:31, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

::I haven't said anything about my beliefs, let's just leave my life out of this, eh? And, with you saying that pi=3, are you suggesting CP completely rewrites this article? [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 10:39, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::If you are not claiming that pi = 3, then that makes two of us. :-)
:::I've made a few updates to the article, primarily about scriptural references and historical estimates. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:41, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

==Is the Bible wrong about pi?==

In the ancient world, measurements were not given as exact as they are today, and that was generally considered acceptable.
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/piwrong.html [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Who said it was wrong? Sloppy ancients aren't nessecarily wrong ancients. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:25, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::So, can I reinsert the Bibical perspective? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:15, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::It's not relevant simply to note that the Bible happens to approximate it in passing. However, many use it as an argument to show that the Bible is errant, and that's what I surmise may have been the purpose for its inclusion [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:35, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Wait. The Bible's interpretation of Pi is not relevant to Pi? What? Look, friend, the Bible is always relevant. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:14, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::You admit you're an atheist on your user page. Why are you so interested in inserting this in there? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:15, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::I admit I'm an atheist-- You say it like it's a bad thing. I'm not trying to stat a fight, Dan, I just figure that, as a wiki with a majority of users that are Christian, it would be good to include the Biblical perspective on matters where it has spoken, as is done in [[shrimp]]. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:18, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:I didn't realize that was still in [[shrimp]]. Anyways, as the article posted above explains, the numbers were not meant to be exact, and the circumference and diameter may have been given as approximate estimates, but pi wasn't a concept that most people knew about or cared about. The Bible wasn't meaning to comment on pi at that point, only at the relevant calculations. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:24, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::That's great, Dan. You seem pretty hostile to the Bible. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:16, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't see how Dan seems to be "pretty hostile to the Bible". Your insertion was simply wrong, as the Bible is not trying to give a value for pi at all. Besides, the Bible reference which is frequently quoted by bibliosceptics as supposedly representing pi is already in the article, and even that warrants being removed (in that form) in my opinion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Oh... So anything a skeptic quotes must be purged, then? What is the purpose of the verse if not to show the value of pi? Furthermore, how do you know what the Bible is and is not trying to say, Philip? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:48, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Also, bibliosceptics is A: Spelled wrong and B: a word which would translate as "Skeptical of books." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:49, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, bugger. It seems I didn't notice that the verse was already quoted in the History section. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:51, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::: I didn't say that anything a sceptic quotes should be purged.
::: What's the purpose if not to show the value of pi? To ''describe the object's size'', genius!
::: What is incorrect about the spelling of "bibliosceptics"? Yes, the word ''could'' mean "sceptical of books", but as "Bible" means "book", it's appropriate to use it to mean "sceptical of the Bible".
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:03, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::"Besides, the Bible reference which is frequently quoted by bibliosceptics as supposedly representing pi is already in the article, and even that warrants being removed (in that form) in my opinion." That's exactly what you said, Philip!
::::Then why not describe it ''correctly''?
::::Skeptics. With a K. Also: Yes. I know it means book. Your use of faux Latin does not make you smarter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: That quote of mine does not indicate that ''anything'' a sceptic quotes should be purged, and neither does it say that that bit should be removed ''because it's something a sceptic quotes''.
::::: Aussies traditionally spell "sceptic" with a "c", hence my use of "bibliosceptic" rather than "biblioskeptic".
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

A fourth consecutive edit, because a thought occurs. How can we be sure that man's measurements are correct in this case but the Bible is not? Furthermore, if the Bible is wrong here, how can we logically accept that everything else is exact-- IE, the age of the Earth? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:56, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
: What reason is there to think that the Bible's measurements are incorrect? The logic of your question is valid, but the premise (that the Bible is incorrect) is not. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:05, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::Well, if it's ten cubits from one side to the other, it should be 31 all around, if we're rounding. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: What if it was actually 9.7 cubits (rounded to 10) from one side to the other? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Then the measurement given is, quite simply, wrong. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:44, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: Huh? Okay, I'll have to spell it out for you. If (and this is not the only possible explanation) the ''actual'' diameter was 9.7 cubits, then the ''actual'' radius would be 30.47 cubits. If ''both'' of those figures are rounded to the nearest cubit, then the diameter would be listed as 10 cubits and the circumference would be listed as 30 cubits. And guess what! That's what the Bible lists them as! So if this is correct (and it doesn't have to be exactly that: it could be 9.6 cubits for example), then the Bible is perfectly accurate! ("Accurate" is a different thing to "precise", as Ed mentions below.) If you still aren't convinced, have a look at the links in the External Links section of the article, particularly the Math Forum one. In fact, don't reply here unless you first read the three links. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:03, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::Yes. Rounding. I get it. It's impercise. If I say Ed is six feet tall, I'm wrong because he's not. If I say he's ''about'' six feet tall, I'm right, because he's just over six feet tall. Is that so hard to understand, Philip? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:06, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Alright. Scanned through the links. I get it-- God couldn't be arsed to tell the lowly Earthers a more prescise number. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:51, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: You've earned yourself another block for that arrogant response.
::::::::: If Ed is 6 feet, 3.02 inches tall, would you refer to him as "about 6'3" tall"? The articles said nothing about God not telling us a more precise number. The first link points out that their measurements would not be that precise to start with. In this case, they are not rounding, but simply measuring with a course measuring device. The second reference pointed out that it was common to round numbers in those times. Insisting on using the word "about" is really a case of you expecting people from 3000 years ago to follow your conventions. It doesn't mean that they got anything wrong. The third reference pointed out the following:
:::::::::* "''...in the absence of an explicit indication of precision, the absence of a tenths digit implies that the figure is accurate to the nearest 1 cubit...''". So the measurements were accurate to within the implied level of precision!
:::::::::* "''Every measurement we ever make is an approximation.''". So do you preface ''every'' measurement with "about"? (That's the point of my question above about Ed being 6'3.02" tall.) Absence of the word "about" does ''not'' mean that the measurement is "wrong".
::::::::: You acknowledged none of those points in your response, instead making a silly comment about God. It's clear that you simply want to argue a point that has been thoroughly refuted, and you've stopped doing so civilly. Hence your block. Learn from it.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:55, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::You're not wrong to call me six feet tall; I don't mind losing 3 inches in the interest of smooth prose. Just don't call me [[Metric to English conversions|two meters]] tall! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:50, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::That's what the "about" is for-- it indicates impercision. Most useful article ever, by the way. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:59, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I took a few science courses in high school and college. You might be interested to learn about the difference between "[[accuracy]]" and "[[precision]]". (I probably should compare and contrast the two ideas in a proposed new article: [[accuracy and precision]].)

:::Here's how it's relevant to [[Pi]]. When the Bible says ten cubits, that is an approximation. Scientists would say the measurement is being given to "[[one significant figure]]". It really could be anything between 9 and 11 cubits, and it still wouldn't be wrong, because it's only an approximation, like saying that Ed Poor is six feet tall (I'm 6'3" in bare feet).

:::The ratio between the diameter of a wheel and its circumference is, roughly, three. And if you drew a circle on the ground, with a diameter of 10 cubits, you would pace off 30 cubits when you walked around the circle. [[Pacing]] is not a very precise measurement, but it's good enough for some cases. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:01, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: "''It really could be anything between 9 and 11 cubits...''": 9.5 and 10.5 actually. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:06, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Anyway, you're being too patient with a time-waster. Liberals l-o-v-e to change the subject, with distractions like the supposedly preferable spelling of sceptic. I'm sceptical of this fella's motives, and I've left a note at his talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:13, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: I would actually like him to answer my last question above, though. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::Ed: You'll get a response in the appropriate place momentarily, don't worry.
:::::Philip J. Rayment: So you have wished it, so it shall be. Response is above. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:44, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

The Bible does not provide a value for pi, so the following statement is misleading at best:

:The [[Qur'an]] also defines Pi as 3.(al-Sûra ''aleph bei'').

Use of the word "also" implies that the Bible has provided a definition. The story about the ten cubits does not define pi. It merely gives a diameter and a radius of something presumed to be circular. (A circumference of thirty is consistent with a diameter of ten, with a precision of one [[significant digit]].)

In any case, I'd like to see the exact words of an English translation of any Koran passage related to circle math before approving any claim as damaging as "defines Pi as 3." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:53, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:Over the years, I've found this to be one of the sillier arguments against the Bible. I've found that those who push it don't believe it, but only do so to try to force in a 'gotcha' that they themselves know isn't the case, but nevertheless they draw enjoyment from trying to act like it is anyway. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:48, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

==I do not like the "Pi in the Bible" section...==
...for many reasons. First, the title is misleading, as the text points out. There is no pi in the Bible (only unleaven bread--just kidding!), nor does the Bible make any attempt to define pi or ''e'' or or any other mathematical or physical constant. Second, I think the subject is out of place in an article about mathematics. Perhaps it should be a minor section in an apologetics-related article. Or be omitted entirely, as it is not really a serious criticism, but more a "baby apologetics" thing that appeals to unsophisticated Bible skeptics.

Thirdly, while I appreciate that someone has done the work of gathering the arguments in one place, the wording could be better. It says "Critics claim this, but they are making the following assumptions". Better to say "Critics say this but they are wrong for these reasons." You do not know what someone else's assumptions are.

Fourthly, a minor point. If you opt to keep this section, you might point out that when critics complain that the Bible rounds the circumference to a multiple of ten instead of something more precise (say, 31.4 cubits), they are being inconsistent, because that number is also imprecise. Because pi is irrational, there is no number that could be contained (in a finite Bible) that could give the measurement exactly. What the baby skeptics are doing here is setting an impossible condition for precision, then saying that if the Bible is imprecise it is not inerrant (another big leap in logic), and hoping that no one will notice the flaws in their reasoning.

{{unsigned|Ga ohoyt}}

:I wasn't happy with the title either (and I wrote it!), but I wasn't sure what else to have. The next best think I could think of was to put pi in quote marks: "Pi" in the Bible.
: I don't think the article is particularly out of place. The article is about pi specifically (not just "mathematics"), and this section is about pi, or at least about a claim made about pi. It is not a serious criticism in the sense of having even a shred of validity, but it is something that is ''often'' claimed by bible critics. The Skeptics Annotated Bible mentions it, for example.
: As for the mention of assumptions, no, you don't need to know what assumptions they are consciously making; there are certain assumptions ''inherent'' in the argument, which is all that the comment is saying. That is, they ''must be'' making these assumptions, even if subconsciously. That's not to say that the wording can't be altered to something better, but I do think it's acceptable as it is.
: There were a couple of other problems with the claim that I thought of mentioning, but the section was large enough already and the others were in a sense variations on the ones already mentioned, so I thought that was enough. Yes, they often claim that the value is "incorrect", but then are unable to give the "correct" value themselves (because it has an infinite number of digits). And that would be a good thing to point out if the Bible was actually claiming to give a value for pi, but as it's not, it seemed a little bit unnecessary.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:48, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Better now? [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 20:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: I'm not sure (but I don't think it's worse). I don't think it's appropriate to have a question for a heading, and neither do I think it's appropriate for the heading to be part of the flow of the text, as is now the case, because the first sentence of the section doesn't make sense without the heading. A heading should give an idea of what the section is about, not be part of the section, if you're following me. Also, the claim is not (normally) explicitly made that the Bible defines pi, as indicated by the heading. Rather, that claim is ''implicit'' in the ''explicit'' claim that the Bible has an incorrect value for pi. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:19, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

I think the section is necessary because we ''do'' periodically hear this canard about Pi, and the encyclopedia should give the reader the information he needs to respond to it. However, I think the article's response is insufficiently dismissive.

I would simply say that the numbers in the Biblical passage ''are'' correct, to their given precision. Hence there is no controversy. Likewise, if an encyclopedia gives the radius and circumference of the Earth to the nearest thousand feet, the encyclopedia is not "wrong about Pi," and nobody would seriously say it was. It seems that only in the case of the Bible are critics so impassioned as to buy such a dopey argument.

Also, I think it is too weak to say it was "common at the time to round numbers." It is common ''all the time'' to give measurements like this, and to do so without any conscious or explicit rounding. The way these bullet points are worded, they give the impression that the values D=10 and C=30 need to be explained by some hypothetical act: maybe someone rounded a measurement, maybe they measured different parts of the rim, etc. But D=10 and C=30 does not need any of these explanations because, as I said, they are correct to their given precision, and there is no discrepancy that needs to be explained. I'd just remove them, lest they contribute to the sense of false controversy.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

== Question on the Bible reference ==

Were decimals and fractions even in use in the Holy Land at the time 1 Kings was written? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:26, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
: Decimals, no, I think. Fractions, yes, to some extent, I think. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:39, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

== Pi contains pi ==
''The infinite length of ostensibly random decimal points in means that it contains the equivalent of every book ever written, every birthday, and every other number.''

That is quite a misleading statement: Pi (most probably) contains any '''finite''' sequence of numbers, therefore any book or birthday date can be "found", e.g., encoded as ascii.

But saying that pi contains "every other number" implies that it contains every number like pi, i.e., every real number. That is obviously wrong. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 08:42, July 11, 2021 (EDT)
:"Obviously wrong"??? Here is my proof by induction:
::1. pi contains pi as one significant digit in a finite representation ("3": 3.14159265'''3'''....)
::2. assume pi contains pi as ''n'' significant digits in a finite representation of pi. Pi must also contain pi as ''n+1'' significant digits as the number of digits of pi is stretched to [[infinity]].
:Q.E.D.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 13:06, July 29, 2021 (EDT)

::Could you explain what you mean by "pi contains pi" exactly? Usually, when looking for birthdays, you would look for a consecutive string of six numbers. And mathematicians are certain that you could find the text of "Hamlet" if you take π mod 26 as a unbroken string. That seems to be different from your idea to find pi... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 15:25, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
:::Not different at all. "Pi contains pi" means what it says: the full pi within pi. [[Infinity denial]] appears to be an obstacle here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:38, July 29, 2021 (EDT)

:::For clarification: π containing π means that there is a consecutive sequence of digits in π (not starting from the first one) which equals π? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:07, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
::::Right, as I proved above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:13, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
:::::Sorry for being a little bit thick (or nitpicking) - perhaps I have difficulties because English isn't my first language... OTOH: mathematics is universal!
:::::You are saying that there is a infinite and unbroken sequence of digits in the representation of π (not starting with the first significant digit) equal to π ?
:::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:34, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
::::::Yes. Repeatedly asking for clarification of something that is clear could be the result of denial, in this case [[infinity denial]]. I don't think the disconnect has anything to do with communication in [[English]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:59, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
:::::As an uninformed, disinterested bystander, I don't see how infinity can be defined by any limited, confined, or known values. Infinity may contain xn number of dimensions, for all we know. How is this so hard to comprehend for people who theorize about life on other planets? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 23:09, July 29, 2021 (EDT)

Doing math in a natural language is sometimes difficult. Luckily, we can get rid of ambiguities by trying to formalize statements.I hope we can agree on the following:<blockquote>If x0.x1x2x3x4x5...... is the digital expansion of π, then a "infinite and unbroken sequence of digits in the representation of π (not starting with the first significant digit) equal to π" is given by xnxn+1xn+2xn+3xn+4xn+5......, with xn=3, xn+1=1, xn+2= 4, xn+3=1, and so on and n being a natural number</blockquote>
Thank you for your patience! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 01:38, July 30, 2021 (EDT)
:Yes, that's right. The aspect of [[infinity]] illustrated by the observation that [[pi]] contains pi is similar to several of the [[miracle]]s and [[parable]]s in the [[New Testament]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 13:10, July 30, 2021 (EDT)

From your "induction proof", I got the impression that you were looking for increasingly long strings resembling the leading digits of π - I looked up the first few for you:
{|
|'''x9'''x10||=||'''3'''5
|-
|'''x137x138'''x139||=||'''31'''7
|-
|'''x2120x2121x2122'''x2123||=||'''314'''2
|-
|'''x3496x3497x3498x3499'''x3450||=||'''3141'''2
|-
|'''x88008x88009x88010x88011x88012'''x88013||=||'''31415'''1
|-
|'''x146451x146452x146453x146454x146455x146456x146457'''x146458||=||'''314159'''7
|-
|'''x25198140x25198141x25198142x25198143x25198144x25198145x25198146x251981407'''x25198148||=||'''3141592'''1
|}

But this does not imply that the whole digital representation of π can be found as a consecutive string in π again. In fact, that is impossible.

Yours statement is like saying that as 1, 11, 111, 1111, 11.111, 111.111 and so on are natural numbers, an infinite string of 1s is a natural number, too: And I hope we can agree that this is a false statement.
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:41, July 30, 2021 (EDT)
:Your superb examples demonstrate that if true for "n" significant digits, then one can be found later having "n+1" significant digits. This reinforces the proof by induction. I don't see any support for your assertion "that is impossible." I also don't see any connection to your hypothesis about whether an infinite string of 1s is a "natural number," which is simply a matter of definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 21:30, July 30, 2021 (EDT)

::*''Your superb examples demonstrate that if true for "n" significant digits, then one can be found later having "n+1" significant digits.'' Thanks! But a few examples make no proof.
::*''This reinforces the proof by induction.'' No. It does not. As no one has proofed that π is a [[normal number]], your "proof by induction" is on shaky grounds.
::*''I don't see any support for your assertion "that is impossible."'' I put it at [[Talk:Conservapedia insights#Proof that π does not contain π:]] - it is somewhat of an overkill:
{|
|style="background-color:pink"|
#π is given as a digital expansion x0.x1x2x3x4x5...
#"finding π in π" means that there is an index n such that π starts all over again at xn
#If π starts again at n, then x0 = xn = 3, x1 = xn+1 = 1, x2 = xn+2 = 4, x3 = xn+3 = 1 and so on. "And so on" means that xk = xk+n for each natural number k, i.e.,. k ∈ N0.
#What happens if k equals n? What is the value of xn + n? According to the step above, xn + n =xn. But xn=x0=3 ! So, xn + n = xn=x0=3
#That's true for all multiples of n: if w ∈ N0, then xw n = x(w-1) n = .... = x2 n = xn = x0 = 3.
#What about xw n +k ( 0 ≤ k < n )? Again, xw n +k = x(w-1) n +k = x(w-2) n +k = x2 n +k = xn +k = xk
#So, for every natural number w and every number k with 0 ≤ k < n we have: xw n +k = xk. That makes π periodic, the length of the period is n.
#Therefore, π can be written as x0x1x2x3...xn-1 / (10n-1 -1) . But this is a rational number, and we know that π is irrational.
#We have a classical contradiction: As our result is wrong, our assumption that π is contained in π has to be wrong.
|}
::*''I also don't see any connection to your hypothesis about whether an infinite string of 1s is a "natural number," which is simply a matter of definition.'' In general, infinity is a difficult concept. But the simplest form of infinity is being "countably infinite". You should make yourself familiar with this concept. Then you would recognize that there is a difference between the statements:
::::#''a sequence contains a countably infinite number of finite sub-sequences with a certain property'' and
::::#''a sequence contains a countably infinite sub-sequence with a certain property''
:::The first statement does not imply the second one. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:44, July 31, 2021 (EDT)
::::Your proposed proof has the fallacy of assuming a termination on an infinite sequence (and thus periodicity). There is no such termination.
::::Your criticism of my proof by induction is also flawed. Do you really think that your examples for n and n+1 will stop existing in the infinite sequence of digits for [[pi]], at some large n? Your position essentially denies the extent of [[infinity]].
::::[[Infinity]] has no such limit. Embrace its vastness and make it work for you. It can be enormously beneficial at a personal level for someone's outlook, and not something to be resisted through [[infinity denial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:25, July 31, 2021 (EDT)

*"''Your proposed proof has the fallacy of assuming a termination on an infinite sequence (and thus periodicity). There is no such termination.''" That sounds impressive. The proof does not assume "a termination on an infinite sequence" - whatever you mean by this.
*"''Your criticism of my proof by induction is also flawed.''" I have been reluctant to address what you call your "proof by induction" - there is no way to do this charitably. But you forced my hand:

===Andrew Schlafly's "Proof by Induction"===
{|
|style="background-color:pink"|π contains π as one significant digit in a finite representation ("3": 3.14159265'''3'''....)
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|That's your '''base case''': as π does not equal 3, the sentence "π contains π as one significant digit" is wrong on face value. But, I assume you wanted to say something like "π contains a approximation of π of length 1." So, well done, I'll give you that. Now for the two parts of the '''induction step''':
|-
|style="background-color:pink"|assume π contains π as ''n'' significant digits in a finite representation of π
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|again, your '''induction hypothesis''' is okay: I'd use the phrase "approximation of π of length ''n''", but let's not quibble.
|-
|style="background-color:pink"|π must also contain π as ''n+1'' significant digits as the number of digits of π is stretched to [[infinity]]
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|'''''What? Why should this be true?''''' Mathematicians have not proofed yet that π is a [[normal number]]! You can easily construct a irrational number which contains an approximation of π of length 1010,000, but no approximation of length 1010,000 + 1 . Perhaps God constructed π this way - just to teach mathematicians a little humility. No one knows yet.
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|But even if your conclusion was true, you would have proofed only that π contains approximations of every imaginable '''''finite''''' length - not of '''''infinite length'''''. That is the same principle which allows you to count to every number, but never reach infinity.
|-
|style="background-color:pink"|Q.E.D.
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|Yeah, that's funny.
|}

Andy, I know that you will not be convinced by my arguments (even if you have read them) - you never are. But while getting something wrong in classical Greek makes you look uneducated to a very small minority of readers, being wrong when it comes to the concept of countable infinity makes you look stupid in the eyes of quite a bigger audience.

But therein lies a chance: I assume that you have no one in your circle of friends with whom you could discuss Koine, but I hope that there are mathematically educated persons whom you know: perhaps a high-school teacher, a mathematician (even a student will do) or a physicist, or someone else with comparable background? Ask them: get their help.

Seriously, yours [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:06, August 1, 2021 (EDT)
:Your [[infinity denial]] is illogical. I urge you to welcome and embrace [[infinity]] (yes, by implication [[eternity]]), and use it for your own benefit. I want you to realize all the happiness and glory it provides.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:52, August 2, 2021 (EDT)
::Are you still talking about mathematics? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:00, August 2, 2021 (EDT)

"assume pi contains pi as n significant digits in a finite representation of pi. Pi must also contain pi as n+1 significant digits" - so pi (assuming it's a normal number, as Augusto said) contains any truncated version of pi of any finite length (no matter how many zillions of digits). An infinite number of each truncation. It would also imply that any finite string of digits of pi would be replicated an infinite number of times elsewhere in the string of digits.

"as the number of digits of pi is stretched to infinity." Is it necessary that the pi within pi start at a digit infinitely far from the first digit? That would get around the periodicity issue.

The mathstack discussion:
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1608060/does-pi-contain-itself

I kind of like the idea of two points on a line being infinitely far from each other, with a third halfway in between, but I don't think that's part of the current standard set of axioms.

We're ignoring the decimal point, right? There's only one of those. Anyway, this is a pretty interesting discussion. [[User:AlChesapeake|AlChesapeake]]
:Right, this is ignoring the decimal point. I like your insight that "pi within pi [would] start at a digit infinitely far from the first digit." I think you're right about that, to get around the periodicity issue, and I'll add that now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 20:59, September 2, 2021 (EDT)

::I am at a loss concerning the proof by induction though - if we start at one digit, then to two, adding one repeatedly, that number will still be an integer, a real number, which (as stated in [[infinity]]) cannot be infinity. No matter how large it gets, it's still a finite number. This proves it for all integers n, but infinity isn't in the set of integers. It's beyond! ha ha (that's my attempt at levity) [[User:AlChesapeake|AlChesapeake]] September 4, 2021

:::So pi is in pi for any large representation of pi, and that remains true as pi approaches infinity, right? This asymptotic approach of a subset of pi to pi itself is essentially the same as saying pi contains pi, right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:44, September 4, 2021 (EDT)

::::The book I'm reading (Charles Pinter's A Book of Abstract Algebra) seems to dodge the question - it has a section on inductive proofs, but it just starts with using integers and never mentions infinity. But the digits are countable, and go on for infinity, so they should be countably infinite - you should be able to match each digit to a digit in the countably infinite set of natural numbers, so that makes sense.
::::I was trying to avoid the term "subset" as by axiom, a [[set]] can't contain itself. But I wasn't thinking of this as a set anyway, as there are no duplicates in a set, so the set of all digits in pi would just be the finite {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0} after removing duplicates.--[[User:AlChesapeake|AlChesapeake]] 20:22, September 4, 2021 (EDT)

The sentence in the article has been changed to
:''Simply stated, Pi contains pi, beginning an infinite number of digits into it (which avoids the periodicity problem).''
Let's rewrite this as:
# pi contains pi after an infinite number of digits into it
# pi will repeat itself after an infinite number of digits into it
# pi will repeat itself after an infinite sequence of pi digits
# an infinite sequence = a sequence that doesn't finish = a sequence without an end = an endless sequence
# pi will repeat itself after an endless sequence of pi digits
# pi will not repeat itself before the end of an endless sequence of pi digits
# an endless sequence has no end
# pi will not repeat itself
# pi does NOT contain pi (except for the trivial solution at offset zero)
Please tell me at which line you stop agreeing with this reasoning, so we can expand this further. [[User:Blavek|Blavek]] ([[User talk:Blavek|talk]]) 19:19, September 4, 2021 (EDT)

:Reply in bold:
:# pi contains pi after an infinite number of digits into it - '''YES'''
:# pi will repeat itself after an infinite number of digits into it - '''YES'''
:# pi will repeat itself after an infinite sequence of pi digits - '''YES'''
:# an infinite sequence = a sequence that doesn't finish = a sequence without an end = an endless sequence - '''YES'''
:# pi will repeat itself after an endless sequence of pi digits - '''YES'''
:# pi will not repeat itself before the end of an endless sequence of pi digits - '''NOT SURE ABOUT THIS.'''
:# an endless sequence has no end - '''YES'''
:# pi will not repeat itself - '''NO. A NON SEQUITUR'''
:# pi does NOT contain pi (except for the trivial solution at offset zero) - '''NO. A NON SEQUITUR'''
:The flaw in your approach is the denial of the existence of an infinite sequence within an infinite sequence. For example, change pi to a set of ordered numbers and then insert pi into that set of numbers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 19:59, September 4, 2021 (EDT)

::To clarify #6: you can either add something after the end, or before the end of a sequence. This is just restating #5 in a different way. Also, it has already been proved that if you repeat a sequence at a finite position, you end with up with a rational number.
::The sentence #9 is a direct result from #8 which is itself a result from #6: you can't add digits after the end of something that has no end.
::
::Your remark about a set of ordered numbers is not clear: did you mean natural numbers, real numbers, digits? And how do you insert pi into that set? [[User:Blavek|Blavek]] ([[User talk:Blavek|talk]]) 22:07, September 4, 2021 (EDT)

:::I think you're making some implicit assumptions about [[infinity]] that restrain its power and scope. Infinity can be an infinite sequence of subseries which are themselves of infinite length. My suggestion about sets (which I meant to refer to digits) illustrates that.

:::By view pi as merely a sequence of digits that stretches on and on does not really capture all of pi's [[infinity]]. Infinity is not merely without end. It is also without enumeration. If pi does not repeat itself until after an infinite series of digits, then there is no problem with it becoming a pattern that would render it a rational number, which we know it is not.

:::Thanks for your comments about this, however, which is helping me clarify my thinking about it!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:50, September 4, 2021 (EDT)

::::The infinite number of digits in the decimal expansion of pi is a [[infinity#Cardinals|countable infinity]] (aleph0), the infinity you are talking about is the uncountable infinity of the real numbers (aleph1). There is an infinite (pun intended) difference between the two. [[User:Blavek|Blavek]] ([[User talk:Blavek|talk]]) 00:12, September 5, 2021 (EDT)

:::::Appreciate the humor! You're right with your examples, but pi is a real number and its decimal expansion is simply an approximation. I don't think "without end" or "after its end" has any real meaning, pun intended!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:29, September 5, 2021 (EDT)

===Linking to this section from the article===
Andy, do you really think that it is a good idea to link to the above section '''on a talk-page''' from the main article on [[pi|π]]? And please, read the discussion! (ups, that was the second sentence of this paragraph - you probably already started skipping...) --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 05:23, August 3, 2021 (EDT)

Talk:Pi

2021-09-05T00:40:51Z

AlChesapeake: Response regarding inductive proofs and infinity

Answering the question posed in the article, "As of 2002, the record is held by Yasumasa Kanada of Tokyo University at 1,241,100,000,000 digits. That result was never printed out: can you figure out why not?"

An ordinary printed page can hold about 5,000 digits.

To print 1,241,100,000,000 digits would require 248,220,000 pages, or 496,440 reams of paper. A ream of paper is the size of a large book. It would take a building the size of a city library to hold the printed output. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 23:08, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Counting the letters in the phrase "Now I wish I had a drink—alcoholic, of course" '''Does not help because it gives a wrong answer.''' it gives 3(.)141315926, it should be 3.1415926...
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:54, 15 January 2007 (EST)

*Yikes! I'm going to have to turn in my geek badge. It should be "How I want a drink--alcoholic of course." I was mixing it with "How I wish I could recollect pi easily today." Sorry. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:16, 16 January 2007 (EST)

So I'm assuming by the change back to the old version, my revision was no good. An explanation why would be nice, though. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 21:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Groan==

What was I thinking here? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pi&curid=4960&diff=71562&oldid=71280&rcid=74105]

113 '''divided into''' 355 like this:

3.14156.....
---------
113|355.00000

I had 1/pi by mistake - not even an approximation, more like an abomination. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:44, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== I like Pi ==

Pi R Squared? No they're not, Pie are round. Brownies are square. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:LOL. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:08, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

==22/7==
Besides the fact that "Pi is exactly 3!", 22/7 is also a repeating decimal.
Pi is also known as Archimedes' constant, Ludolphine, and Ludolph's Number.
Ludolph van Ceulen (Germany) spent a great deal of time calculating digits of pi. The number is engraved on his tombstone. If I were to get buried, I would have all the digits I memorized engraved on it, but I want to get cremated instead. [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 10:16, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:It is not true that Pi is exactly 3. What is your suggestion to improve the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:31, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

::I haven't said anything about my beliefs, let's just leave my life out of this, eh? And, with you saying that pi=3, are you suggesting CP completely rewrites this article? [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 10:39, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::If you are not claiming that pi = 3, then that makes two of us. :-)
:::I've made a few updates to the article, primarily about scriptural references and historical estimates. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:41, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

==Is the Bible wrong about pi?==

In the ancient world, measurements were not given as exact as they are today, and that was generally considered acceptable.
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/piwrong.html [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Who said it was wrong? Sloppy ancients aren't nessecarily wrong ancients. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:25, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::So, can I reinsert the Bibical perspective? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:15, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::It's not relevant simply to note that the Bible happens to approximate it in passing. However, many use it as an argument to show that the Bible is errant, and that's what I surmise may have been the purpose for its inclusion [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:35, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Wait. The Bible's interpretation of Pi is not relevant to Pi? What? Look, friend, the Bible is always relevant. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:14, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::You admit you're an atheist on your user page. Why are you so interested in inserting this in there? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:15, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::I admit I'm an atheist-- You say it like it's a bad thing. I'm not trying to stat a fight, Dan, I just figure that, as a wiki with a majority of users that are Christian, it would be good to include the Biblical perspective on matters where it has spoken, as is done in [[shrimp]]. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:18, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:I didn't realize that was still in [[shrimp]]. Anyways, as the article posted above explains, the numbers were not meant to be exact, and the circumference and diameter may have been given as approximate estimates, but pi wasn't a concept that most people knew about or cared about. The Bible wasn't meaning to comment on pi at that point, only at the relevant calculations. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:24, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::That's great, Dan. You seem pretty hostile to the Bible. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:16, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't see how Dan seems to be "pretty hostile to the Bible". Your insertion was simply wrong, as the Bible is not trying to give a value for pi at all. Besides, the Bible reference which is frequently quoted by bibliosceptics as supposedly representing pi is already in the article, and even that warrants being removed (in that form) in my opinion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Oh... So anything a skeptic quotes must be purged, then? What is the purpose of the verse if not to show the value of pi? Furthermore, how do you know what the Bible is and is not trying to say, Philip? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:48, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Also, bibliosceptics is A: Spelled wrong and B: a word which would translate as "Skeptical of books." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:49, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, bugger. It seems I didn't notice that the verse was already quoted in the History section. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:51, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::: I didn't say that anything a sceptic quotes should be purged.
::: What's the purpose if not to show the value of pi? To ''describe the object's size'', genius!
::: What is incorrect about the spelling of "bibliosceptics"? Yes, the word ''could'' mean "sceptical of books", but as "Bible" means "book", it's appropriate to use it to mean "sceptical of the Bible".
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:03, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::"Besides, the Bible reference which is frequently quoted by bibliosceptics as supposedly representing pi is already in the article, and even that warrants being removed (in that form) in my opinion." That's exactly what you said, Philip!
::::Then why not describe it ''correctly''?
::::Skeptics. With a K. Also: Yes. I know it means book. Your use of faux Latin does not make you smarter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: That quote of mine does not indicate that ''anything'' a sceptic quotes should be purged, and neither does it say that that bit should be removed ''because it's something a sceptic quotes''.
::::: Aussies traditionally spell "sceptic" with a "c", hence my use of "bibliosceptic" rather than "biblioskeptic".
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

A fourth consecutive edit, because a thought occurs. How can we be sure that man's measurements are correct in this case but the Bible is not? Furthermore, if the Bible is wrong here, how can we logically accept that everything else is exact-- IE, the age of the Earth? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:56, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
: What reason is there to think that the Bible's measurements are incorrect? The logic of your question is valid, but the premise (that the Bible is incorrect) is not. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:05, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::Well, if it's ten cubits from one side to the other, it should be 31 all around, if we're rounding. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: What if it was actually 9.7 cubits (rounded to 10) from one side to the other? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Then the measurement given is, quite simply, wrong. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:44, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: Huh? Okay, I'll have to spell it out for you. If (and this is not the only possible explanation) the ''actual'' diameter was 9.7 cubits, then the ''actual'' radius would be 30.47 cubits. If ''both'' of those figures are rounded to the nearest cubit, then the diameter would be listed as 10 cubits and the circumference would be listed as 30 cubits. And guess what! That's what the Bible lists them as! So if this is correct (and it doesn't have to be exactly that: it could be 9.6 cubits for example), then the Bible is perfectly accurate! ("Accurate" is a different thing to "precise", as Ed mentions below.) If you still aren't convinced, have a look at the links in the External Links section of the article, particularly the Math Forum one. In fact, don't reply here unless you first read the three links. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:03, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::Yes. Rounding. I get it. It's impercise. If I say Ed is six feet tall, I'm wrong because he's not. If I say he's ''about'' six feet tall, I'm right, because he's just over six feet tall. Is that so hard to understand, Philip? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:06, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Alright. Scanned through the links. I get it-- God couldn't be arsed to tell the lowly Earthers a more prescise number. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:51, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: You've earned yourself another block for that arrogant response.
::::::::: If Ed is 6 feet, 3.02 inches tall, would you refer to him as "about 6'3" tall"? The articles said nothing about God not telling us a more precise number. The first link points out that their measurements would not be that precise to start with. In this case, they are not rounding, but simply measuring with a course measuring device. The second reference pointed out that it was common to round numbers in those times. Insisting on using the word "about" is really a case of you expecting people from 3000 years ago to follow your conventions. It doesn't mean that they got anything wrong. The third reference pointed out the following:
:::::::::* "''...in the absence of an explicit indication of precision, the absence of a tenths digit implies that the figure is accurate to the nearest 1 cubit...''". So the measurements were accurate to within the implied level of precision!
:::::::::* "''Every measurement we ever make is an approximation.''". So do you preface ''every'' measurement with "about"? (That's the point of my question above about Ed being 6'3.02" tall.) Absence of the word "about" does ''not'' mean that the measurement is "wrong".
::::::::: You acknowledged none of those points in your response, instead making a silly comment about God. It's clear that you simply want to argue a point that has been thoroughly refuted, and you've stopped doing so civilly. Hence your block. Learn from it.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:55, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::You're not wrong to call me six feet tall; I don't mind losing 3 inches in the interest of smooth prose. Just don't call me [[Metric to English conversions|two meters]] tall! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:50, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::That's what the "about" is for-- it indicates impercision. Most useful article ever, by the way. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:59, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I took a few science courses in high school and college. You might be interested to learn about the difference between "[[accuracy]]" and "[[precision]]". (I probably should compare and contrast the two ideas in a proposed new article: [[accuracy and precision]].)

:::Here's how it's relevant to [[Pi]]. When the Bible says ten cubits, that is an approximation. Scientists would say the measurement is being given to "[[one significant figure]]". It really could be anything between 9 and 11 cubits, and it still wouldn't be wrong, because it's only an approximation, like saying that Ed Poor is six feet tall (I'm 6'3" in bare feet).

:::The ratio between the diameter of a wheel and its circumference is, roughly, three. And if you drew a circle on the ground, with a diameter of 10 cubits, you would pace off 30 cubits when you walked around the circle. [[Pacing]] is not a very precise measurement, but it's good enough for some cases. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:01, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: "''It really could be anything between 9 and 11 cubits...''": 9.5 and 10.5 actually. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:06, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Anyway, you're being too patient with a time-waster. Liberals l-o-v-e to change the subject, with distractions like the supposedly preferable spelling of sceptic. I'm sceptical of this fella's motives, and I've left a note at his talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:13, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: I would actually like him to answer my last question above, though. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::Ed: You'll get a response in the appropriate place momentarily, don't worry.
:::::Philip J. Rayment: So you have wished it, so it shall be. Response is above. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:44, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

The Bible does not provide a value for pi, so the following statement is misleading at best:

:The [[Qur'an]] also defines Pi as 3.(al-Sûra ''aleph bei'').

Use of the word "also" implies that the Bible has provided a definition. The story about the ten cubits does not define pi. It merely gives a diameter and a radius of something presumed to be circular. (A circumference of thirty is consistent with a diameter of ten, with a precision of one [[significant digit]].)

In any case, I'd like to see the exact words of an English translation of any Koran passage related to circle math before approving any claim as damaging as "defines Pi as 3." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:53, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:Over the years, I've found this to be one of the sillier arguments against the Bible. I've found that those who push it don't believe it, but only do so to try to force in a 'gotcha' that they themselves know isn't the case, but nevertheless they draw enjoyment from trying to act like it is anyway. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:48, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

==I do not like the "Pi in the Bible" section...==
...for many reasons. First, the title is misleading, as the text points out. There is no pi in the Bible (only unleaven bread--just kidding!), nor does the Bible make any attempt to define pi or ''e'' or or any other mathematical or physical constant. Second, I think the subject is out of place in an article about mathematics. Perhaps it should be a minor section in an apologetics-related article. Or be omitted entirely, as it is not really a serious criticism, but more a "baby apologetics" thing that appeals to unsophisticated Bible skeptics.

Thirdly, while I appreciate that someone has done the work of gathering the arguments in one place, the wording could be better. It says "Critics claim this, but they are making the following assumptions". Better to say "Critics say this but they are wrong for these reasons." You do not know what someone else's assumptions are.

Fourthly, a minor point. If you opt to keep this section, you might point out that when critics complain that the Bible rounds the circumference to a multiple of ten instead of something more precise (say, 31.4 cubits), they are being inconsistent, because that number is also imprecise. Because pi is irrational, there is no number that could be contained (in a finite Bible) that could give the measurement exactly. What the baby skeptics are doing here is setting an impossible condition for precision, then saying that if the Bible is imprecise it is not inerrant (another big leap in logic), and hoping that no one will notice the flaws in their reasoning.

{{unsigned|Ga ohoyt}}

:I wasn't happy with the title either (and I wrote it!), but I wasn't sure what else to have. The next best think I could think of was to put pi in quote marks: "Pi" in the Bible.
: I don't think the article is particularly out of place. The article is about pi specifically (not just "mathematics"), and this section is about pi, or at least about a claim made about pi. It is not a serious criticism in the sense of having even a shred of validity, but it is something that is ''often'' claimed by bible critics. The Skeptics Annotated Bible mentions it, for example.
: As for the mention of assumptions, no, you don't need to know what assumptions they are consciously making; there are certain assumptions ''inherent'' in the argument, which is all that the comment is saying. That is, they ''must be'' making these assumptions, even if subconsciously. That's not to say that the wording can't be altered to something better, but I do think it's acceptable as it is.
: There were a couple of other problems with the claim that I thought of mentioning, but the section was large enough already and the others were in a sense variations on the ones already mentioned, so I thought that was enough. Yes, they often claim that the value is "incorrect", but then are unable to give the "correct" value themselves (because it has an infinite number of digits). And that would be a good thing to point out if the Bible was actually claiming to give a value for pi, but as it's not, it seemed a little bit unnecessary.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:48, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Better now? [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 20:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: I'm not sure (but I don't think it's worse). I don't think it's appropriate to have a question for a heading, and neither do I think it's appropriate for the heading to be part of the flow of the text, as is now the case, because the first sentence of the section doesn't make sense without the heading. A heading should give an idea of what the section is about, not be part of the section, if you're following me. Also, the claim is not (normally) explicitly made that the Bible defines pi, as indicated by the heading. Rather, that claim is ''implicit'' in the ''explicit'' claim that the Bible has an incorrect value for pi. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:19, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

I think the section is necessary because we ''do'' periodically hear this canard about Pi, and the encyclopedia should give the reader the information he needs to respond to it. However, I think the article's response is insufficiently dismissive.

I would simply say that the numbers in the Biblical passage ''are'' correct, to their given precision. Hence there is no controversy. Likewise, if an encyclopedia gives the radius and circumference of the Earth to the nearest thousand feet, the encyclopedia is not "wrong about Pi," and nobody would seriously say it was. It seems that only in the case of the Bible are critics so impassioned as to buy such a dopey argument.

Also, I think it is too weak to say it was "common at the time to round numbers." It is common ''all the time'' to give measurements like this, and to do so without any conscious or explicit rounding. The way these bullet points are worded, they give the impression that the values D=10 and C=30 need to be explained by some hypothetical act: maybe someone rounded a measurement, maybe they measured different parts of the rim, etc. But D=10 and C=30 does not need any of these explanations because, as I said, they are correct to their given precision, and there is no discrepancy that needs to be explained. I'd just remove them, lest they contribute to the sense of false controversy.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

== Question on the Bible reference ==

Were decimals and fractions even in use in the Holy Land at the time 1 Kings was written? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:26, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
: Decimals, no, I think. Fractions, yes, to some extent, I think. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:39, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

== Pi contains pi ==
''The infinite length of ostensibly random decimal points in means that it contains the equivalent of every book ever written, every birthday, and every other number.''

That is quite a misleading statement: Pi (most probably) contains any '''finite''' sequence of numbers, therefore any book or birthday date can be "found", e.g., encoded as ascii.

But saying that pi contains "every other number" implies that it contains every number like pi, i.e., every real number. That is obviously wrong. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 08:42, July 11, 2021 (EDT)
:"Obviously wrong"??? Here is my proof by induction:
::1. pi contains pi as one significant digit in a finite representation ("3": 3.14159265'''3'''....)
::2. assume pi contains pi as ''n'' significant digits in a finite representation of pi. Pi must also contain pi as ''n+1'' significant digits as the number of digits of pi is stretched to [[infinity]].
:Q.E.D.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 13:06, July 29, 2021 (EDT)

::Could you explain what you mean by "pi contains pi" exactly? Usually, when looking for birthdays, you would look for a consecutive string of six numbers. And mathematicians are certain that you could find the text of "Hamlet" if you take π mod 26 as a unbroken string. That seems to be different from your idea to find pi... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 15:25, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
:::Not different at all. "Pi contains pi" means what it says: the full pi within pi. [[Infinity denial]] appears to be an obstacle here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:38, July 29, 2021 (EDT)

:::For clarification: π containing π means that there is a consecutive sequence of digits in π (not starting from the first one) which equals π? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:07, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
::::Right, as I proved above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:13, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
:::::Sorry for being a little bit thick (or nitpicking) - perhaps I have difficulties because English isn't my first language... OTOH: mathematics is universal!
:::::You are saying that there is a infinite and unbroken sequence of digits in the representation of π (not starting with the first significant digit) equal to π ?
:::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:34, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
::::::Yes. Repeatedly asking for clarification of something that is clear could be the result of denial, in this case [[infinity denial]]. I don't think the disconnect has anything to do with communication in [[English]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:59, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
:::::As an uninformed, disinterested bystander, I don't see how infinity can be defined by any limited, confined, or known values. Infinity may contain xn number of dimensions, for all we know. How is this so hard to comprehend for people who theorize about life on other planets? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 23:09, July 29, 2021 (EDT)

Doing math in a natural language is sometimes difficult. Luckily, we can get rid of ambiguities by trying to formalize statements.I hope we can agree on the following:<blockquote>If x0.x1x2x3x4x5...... is the digital expansion of π, then a "infinite and unbroken sequence of digits in the representation of π (not starting with the first significant digit) equal to π" is given by xnxn+1xn+2xn+3xn+4xn+5......, with xn=3, xn+1=1, xn+2= 4, xn+3=1, and so on and n being a natural number</blockquote>
Thank you for your patience! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 01:38, July 30, 2021 (EDT)
:Yes, that's right. The aspect of [[infinity]] illustrated by the observation that [[pi]] contains pi is similar to several of the [[miracle]]s and [[parable]]s in the [[New Testament]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 13:10, July 30, 2021 (EDT)

From your "induction proof", I got the impression that you were looking for increasingly long strings resembling the leading digits of π - I looked up the first few for you:
{|
|'''x9'''x10||=||'''3'''5
|-
|'''x137x138'''x139||=||'''31'''7
|-
|'''x2120x2121x2122'''x2123||=||'''314'''2
|-
|'''x3496x3497x3498x3499'''x3450||=||'''3141'''2
|-
|'''x88008x88009x88010x88011x88012'''x88013||=||'''31415'''1
|-
|'''x146451x146452x146453x146454x146455x146456x146457'''x146458||=||'''314159'''7
|-
|'''x25198140x25198141x25198142x25198143x25198144x25198145x25198146x251981407'''x25198148||=||'''3141592'''1
|}

But this does not imply that the whole digital representation of π can be found as a consecutive string in π again. In fact, that is impossible.

Yours statement is like saying that as 1, 11, 111, 1111, 11.111, 111.111 and so on are natural numbers, an infinite string of 1s is a natural number, too: And I hope we can agree that this is a false statement.
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:41, July 30, 2021 (EDT)
:Your superb examples demonstrate that if true for "n" significant digits, then one can be found later having "n+1" significant digits. This reinforces the proof by induction. I don't see any support for your assertion "that is impossible." I also don't see any connection to your hypothesis about whether an infinite string of 1s is a "natural number," which is simply a matter of definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 21:30, July 30, 2021 (EDT)

::*''Your superb examples demonstrate that if true for "n" significant digits, then one can be found later having "n+1" significant digits.'' Thanks! But a few examples make no proof.
::*''This reinforces the proof by induction.'' No. It does not. As no one has proofed that π is a [[normal number]], your "proof by induction" is on shaky grounds.
::*''I don't see any support for your assertion "that is impossible."'' I put it at [[Talk:Conservapedia insights#Proof that π does not contain π:]] - it is somewhat of an overkill:
{|
|style="background-color:pink"|
#π is given as a digital expansion x0.x1x2x3x4x5...
#"finding π in π" means that there is an index n such that π starts all over again at xn
#If π starts again at n, then x0 = xn = 3, x1 = xn+1 = 1, x2 = xn+2 = 4, x3 = xn+3 = 1 and so on. "And so on" means that xk = xk+n for each natural number k, i.e.,. k ∈ N0.
#What happens if k equals n? What is the value of xn + n? According to the step above, xn + n =xn. But xn=x0=3 ! So, xn + n = xn=x0=3
#That's true for all multiples of n: if w ∈ N0, then xw n = x(w-1) n = .... = x2 n = xn = x0 = 3.
#What about xw n +k ( 0 ≤ k < n )? Again, xw n +k = x(w-1) n +k = x(w-2) n +k = x2 n +k = xn +k = xk
#So, for every natural number w and every number k with 0 ≤ k < n we have: xw n +k = xk. That makes π periodic, the length of the period is n.
#Therefore, π can be written as x0x1x2x3...xn-1 / (10n-1 -1) . But this is a rational number, and we know that π is irrational.
#We have a classical contradiction: As our result is wrong, our assumption that π is contained in π has to be wrong.
|}
::*''I also don't see any connection to your hypothesis about whether an infinite string of 1s is a "natural number," which is simply a matter of definition.'' In general, infinity is a difficult concept. But the simplest form of infinity is being "countably infinite". You should make yourself familiar with this concept. Then you would recognize that there is a difference between the statements:
::::#''a sequence contains a countably infinite number of finite sub-sequences with a certain property'' and
::::#''a sequence contains a countably infinite sub-sequence with a certain property''
:::The first statement does not imply the second one. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:44, July 31, 2021 (EDT)
::::Your proposed proof has the fallacy of assuming a termination on an infinite sequence (and thus periodicity). There is no such termination.
::::Your criticism of my proof by induction is also flawed. Do you really think that your examples for n and n+1 will stop existing in the infinite sequence of digits for [[pi]], at some large n? Your position essentially denies the extent of [[infinity]].
::::[[Infinity]] has no such limit. Embrace its vastness and make it work for you. It can be enormously beneficial at a personal level for someone's outlook, and not something to be resisted through [[infinity denial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:25, July 31, 2021 (EDT)

*"''Your proposed proof has the fallacy of assuming a termination on an infinite sequence (and thus periodicity). There is no such termination.''" That sounds impressive. The proof does not assume "a termination on an infinite sequence" - whatever you mean by this.
*"''Your criticism of my proof by induction is also flawed.''" I have been reluctant to address what you call your "proof by induction" - there is no way to do this charitably. But you forced my hand:

===Andrew Schlafly's "Proof by Induction"===
{|
|style="background-color:pink"|π contains π as one significant digit in a finite representation ("3": 3.14159265'''3'''....)
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|That's your '''base case''': as π does not equal 3, the sentence "π contains π as one significant digit" is wrong on face value. But, I assume you wanted to say something like "π contains a approximation of π of length 1." So, well done, I'll give you that. Now for the two parts of the '''induction step''':
|-
|style="background-color:pink"|assume π contains π as ''n'' significant digits in a finite representation of π
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|again, your '''induction hypothesis''' is okay: I'd use the phrase "approximation of π of length ''n''", but let's not quibble.
|-
|style="background-color:pink"|π must also contain π as ''n+1'' significant digits as the number of digits of π is stretched to [[infinity]]
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|'''''What? Why should this be true?''''' Mathematicians have not proofed yet that π is a [[normal number]]! You can easily construct a irrational number which contains an approximation of π of length 1010,000, but no approximation of length 1010,000 + 1 . Perhaps God constructed π this way - just to teach mathematicians a little humility. No one knows yet.
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|But even if your conclusion was true, you would have proofed only that π contains approximations of every imaginable '''''finite''''' length - not of '''''infinite length'''''. That is the same principle which allows you to count to every number, but never reach infinity.
|-
|style="background-color:pink"|Q.E.D.
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|Yeah, that's funny.
|}

Andy, I know that you will not be convinced by my arguments (even if you have read them) - you never are. But while getting something wrong in classical Greek makes you look uneducated to a very small minority of readers, being wrong when it comes to the concept of countable infinity makes you look stupid in the eyes of quite a bigger audience.

But therein lies a chance: I assume that you have no one in your circle of friends with whom you could discuss Koine, but I hope that there are mathematically educated persons whom you know: perhaps a high-school teacher, a mathematician (even a student will do) or a physicist, or someone else with comparable background? Ask them: get their help.

Seriously, yours [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:06, August 1, 2021 (EDT)
:Your [[infinity denial]] is illogical. I urge you to welcome and embrace [[infinity]] (yes, by implication [[eternity]]), and use it for your own benefit. I want you to realize all the happiness and glory it provides.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:52, August 2, 2021 (EDT)
::Are you still talking about mathematics? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:00, August 2, 2021 (EDT)

"assume pi contains pi as n significant digits in a finite representation of pi. Pi must also contain pi as n+1 significant digits" - so pi (assuming it's a normal number, as Augusto said) contains any truncated version of pi of any finite length (no matter how many zillions of digits). An infinite number of each truncation. It would also imply that any finite string of digits of pi would be replicated an infinite number of times elsewhere in the string of digits.

"as the number of digits of pi is stretched to infinity." Is it necessary that the pi within pi start at a digit infinitely far from the first digit? That would get around the periodicity issue.

The mathstack discussion:
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1608060/does-pi-contain-itself

I kind of like the idea of two points on a line being infinitely far from each other, with a third halfway in between, but I don't think that's part of the current standard set of axioms.

We're ignoring the decimal point, right? There's only one of those. Anyway, this is a pretty interesting discussion. [[User:AlChesapeake|AlChesapeake]]
:Right, this is ignoring the decimal point. I like your insight that "pi within pi [would] start at a digit infinitely far from the first digit." I think you're right about that, to get around the periodicity issue, and I'll add that now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 20:59, September 2, 2021 (EDT)

::I am at a loss concerning the proof by induction though - if we start at one digit, then to two, adding one repeatedly, that number will still be an integer, a real number, which (as stated in [[infinity]]) cannot be infinity. No matter how large it gets, it's still a finite number. This proves it for all integers n, but infinity isn't in the set of integers. It's beyond! ha ha (that's my attempt at levity) [[User:AlChesapeake|AlChesapeake]] September 4, 2021

:::So pi is in pi for any large representation of pi, and that remains true as pi approaches infinity, right? This asymptotic approach of a subset of pi to pi itself is essentially the same as saying pi contains pi, right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:44, September 4, 2021 (EDT)

::::The book I'm reading (Charles Pinter's A Book of Abstract Algebra) seems to dodge the question - it has a section on inductive proofs, but it just starts with using integers and never mentions infinity. But the digits are countable, and go on for infinity, so they should be countably infinite - you should be able to match each digit to a digit in the countably infinite set of natural numbers, so that makes sense.
::::I was trying to avoid the term "subset" as by axiom, a [[set]] can't contain itself. But I wasn't thinking of this as a set anyway, as there are no duplicates in a set, so the set of all digits in pi would just be the finite set <math>\{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0\}</math> after removing duplicates.--[[User:AlChesapeake|AlChesapeake]] 20:22, September 4, 2021 (EDT)

The sentence in the article has been changed to
:''Simply stated, Pi contains pi, beginning an infinite number of digits into it (which avoids the periodicity problem).''
Let's rewrite this as:
# pi contains pi after an infinite number of digits into it
# pi will repeat itself after an infinite number of digits into it
# pi will repeat itself after an infinite sequence of pi digits
# an infinite sequence = a sequence that doesn't finish = a sequence without an end = an endless sequence
# pi will repeat itself after an endless sequence of pi digits
# pi will not repeat itself before the end of an endless sequence of pi digits
# an endless sequence has no end
# pi will not repeat itself
# pi does NOT contain pi (except for the trivial solution at offset zero)
Please tell me at which line you stop agreeing with this reasoning, so we can expand this further. [[User:Blavek|Blavek]] ([[User talk:Blavek|talk]]) 19:19, September 4, 2021 (EDT)

:Reply in bold:
:# pi contains pi after an infinite number of digits into it - '''YES'''
:# pi will repeat itself after an infinite number of digits into it - '''YES'''
:# pi will repeat itself after an infinite sequence of pi digits - '''YES'''
:# an infinite sequence = a sequence that doesn't finish = a sequence without an end = an endless sequence - '''YES'''
:# pi will repeat itself after an endless sequence of pi digits - '''YES'''
:# pi will not repeat itself before the end of an endless sequence of pi digits - '''NOT SURE ABOUT THIS.'''
:# an endless sequence has no end - '''YES'''
:# pi will not repeat itself - '''NO. A NON SEQUITUR'''
:# pi does NOT contain pi (except for the trivial solution at offset zero) - '''NO. A NON SEQUITUR'''
:The flaw in your approach is the denial of the existence of an infinite sequence within an infinite sequence. For example, change pi to a set of ordered numbers and then insert pi into that set of numbers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 19:59, September 4, 2021 (EDT)

===Linking to this section from the article===
Andy, do you really think that it is a good idea to link to the above section '''on a talk-page''' from the main article on [[pi|π]]? And please, read the discussion! (ups, that was the second sentence of this paragraph - you probably already started skipping...) --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 05:23, August 3, 2021 (EDT)

Talk:Pi

2021-09-04T20:01:35Z

AlChesapeake: put date

Answering the question posed in the article, "As of 2002, the record is held by Yasumasa Kanada of Tokyo University at 1,241,100,000,000 digits. That result was never printed out: can you figure out why not?"

An ordinary printed page can hold about 5,000 digits.

To print 1,241,100,000,000 digits would require 248,220,000 pages, or 496,440 reams of paper. A ream of paper is the size of a large book. It would take a building the size of a city library to hold the printed output. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 23:08, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Counting the letters in the phrase "Now I wish I had a drink—alcoholic, of course" '''Does not help because it gives a wrong answer.''' it gives 3(.)141315926, it should be 3.1415926...
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:54, 15 January 2007 (EST)

*Yikes! I'm going to have to turn in my geek badge. It should be "How I want a drink--alcoholic of course." I was mixing it with "How I wish I could recollect pi easily today." Sorry. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:16, 16 January 2007 (EST)

So I'm assuming by the change back to the old version, my revision was no good. An explanation why would be nice, though. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 21:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Groan==

What was I thinking here? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pi&curid=4960&diff=71562&oldid=71280&rcid=74105]

113 '''divided into''' 355 like this:

3.14156.....
---------
113|355.00000

I had 1/pi by mistake - not even an approximation, more like an abomination. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:44, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== I like Pi ==

Pi R Squared? No they're not, Pie are round. Brownies are square. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:LOL. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:08, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

==22/7==
Besides the fact that "Pi is exactly 3!", 22/7 is also a repeating decimal.
Pi is also known as Archimedes' constant, Ludolphine, and Ludolph's Number.
Ludolph van Ceulen (Germany) spent a great deal of time calculating digits of pi. The number is engraved on his tombstone. If I were to get buried, I would have all the digits I memorized engraved on it, but I want to get cremated instead. [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 10:16, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:It is not true that Pi is exactly 3. What is your suggestion to improve the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:31, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

::I haven't said anything about my beliefs, let's just leave my life out of this, eh? And, with you saying that pi=3, are you suggesting CP completely rewrites this article? [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 10:39, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::If you are not claiming that pi = 3, then that makes two of us. :-)
:::I've made a few updates to the article, primarily about scriptural references and historical estimates. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:41, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

==Is the Bible wrong about pi?==

In the ancient world, measurements were not given as exact as they are today, and that was generally considered acceptable.
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/piwrong.html [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Who said it was wrong? Sloppy ancients aren't nessecarily wrong ancients. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:25, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::So, can I reinsert the Bibical perspective? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:15, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::It's not relevant simply to note that the Bible happens to approximate it in passing. However, many use it as an argument to show that the Bible is errant, and that's what I surmise may have been the purpose for its inclusion [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:35, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Wait. The Bible's interpretation of Pi is not relevant to Pi? What? Look, friend, the Bible is always relevant. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:14, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::You admit you're an atheist on your user page. Why are you so interested in inserting this in there? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:15, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::I admit I'm an atheist-- You say it like it's a bad thing. I'm not trying to stat a fight, Dan, I just figure that, as a wiki with a majority of users that are Christian, it would be good to include the Biblical perspective on matters where it has spoken, as is done in [[shrimp]]. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:18, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:I didn't realize that was still in [[shrimp]]. Anyways, as the article posted above explains, the numbers were not meant to be exact, and the circumference and diameter may have been given as approximate estimates, but pi wasn't a concept that most people knew about or cared about. The Bible wasn't meaning to comment on pi at that point, only at the relevant calculations. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:24, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::That's great, Dan. You seem pretty hostile to the Bible. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:16, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't see how Dan seems to be "pretty hostile to the Bible". Your insertion was simply wrong, as the Bible is not trying to give a value for pi at all. Besides, the Bible reference which is frequently quoted by bibliosceptics as supposedly representing pi is already in the article, and even that warrants being removed (in that form) in my opinion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Oh... So anything a skeptic quotes must be purged, then? What is the purpose of the verse if not to show the value of pi? Furthermore, how do you know what the Bible is and is not trying to say, Philip? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:48, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Also, bibliosceptics is A: Spelled wrong and B: a word which would translate as "Skeptical of books." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:49, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, bugger. It seems I didn't notice that the verse was already quoted in the History section. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:51, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::: I didn't say that anything a sceptic quotes should be purged.
::: What's the purpose if not to show the value of pi? To ''describe the object's size'', genius!
::: What is incorrect about the spelling of "bibliosceptics"? Yes, the word ''could'' mean "sceptical of books", but as "Bible" means "book", it's appropriate to use it to mean "sceptical of the Bible".
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:03, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::"Besides, the Bible reference which is frequently quoted by bibliosceptics as supposedly representing pi is already in the article, and even that warrants being removed (in that form) in my opinion." That's exactly what you said, Philip!
::::Then why not describe it ''correctly''?
::::Skeptics. With a K. Also: Yes. I know it means book. Your use of faux Latin does not make you smarter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: That quote of mine does not indicate that ''anything'' a sceptic quotes should be purged, and neither does it say that that bit should be removed ''because it's something a sceptic quotes''.
::::: Aussies traditionally spell "sceptic" with a "c", hence my use of "bibliosceptic" rather than "biblioskeptic".
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

A fourth consecutive edit, because a thought occurs. How can we be sure that man's measurements are correct in this case but the Bible is not? Furthermore, if the Bible is wrong here, how can we logically accept that everything else is exact-- IE, the age of the Earth? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:56, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
: What reason is there to think that the Bible's measurements are incorrect? The logic of your question is valid, but the premise (that the Bible is incorrect) is not. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:05, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::Well, if it's ten cubits from one side to the other, it should be 31 all around, if we're rounding. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: What if it was actually 9.7 cubits (rounded to 10) from one side to the other? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Then the measurement given is, quite simply, wrong. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:44, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: Huh? Okay, I'll have to spell it out for you. If (and this is not the only possible explanation) the ''actual'' diameter was 9.7 cubits, then the ''actual'' radius would be 30.47 cubits. If ''both'' of those figures are rounded to the nearest cubit, then the diameter would be listed as 10 cubits and the circumference would be listed as 30 cubits. And guess what! That's what the Bible lists them as! So if this is correct (and it doesn't have to be exactly that: it could be 9.6 cubits for example), then the Bible is perfectly accurate! ("Accurate" is a different thing to "precise", as Ed mentions below.) If you still aren't convinced, have a look at the links in the External Links section of the article, particularly the Math Forum one. In fact, don't reply here unless you first read the three links. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:03, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::Yes. Rounding. I get it. It's impercise. If I say Ed is six feet tall, I'm wrong because he's not. If I say he's ''about'' six feet tall, I'm right, because he's just over six feet tall. Is that so hard to understand, Philip? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:06, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Alright. Scanned through the links. I get it-- God couldn't be arsed to tell the lowly Earthers a more prescise number. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:51, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: You've earned yourself another block for that arrogant response.
::::::::: If Ed is 6 feet, 3.02 inches tall, would you refer to him as "about 6'3" tall"? The articles said nothing about God not telling us a more precise number. The first link points out that their measurements would not be that precise to start with. In this case, they are not rounding, but simply measuring with a course measuring device. The second reference pointed out that it was common to round numbers in those times. Insisting on using the word "about" is really a case of you expecting people from 3000 years ago to follow your conventions. It doesn't mean that they got anything wrong. The third reference pointed out the following:
:::::::::* "''...in the absence of an explicit indication of precision, the absence of a tenths digit implies that the figure is accurate to the nearest 1 cubit...''". So the measurements were accurate to within the implied level of precision!
:::::::::* "''Every measurement we ever make is an approximation.''". So do you preface ''every'' measurement with "about"? (That's the point of my question above about Ed being 6'3.02" tall.) Absence of the word "about" does ''not'' mean that the measurement is "wrong".
::::::::: You acknowledged none of those points in your response, instead making a silly comment about God. It's clear that you simply want to argue a point that has been thoroughly refuted, and you've stopped doing so civilly. Hence your block. Learn from it.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:55, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::You're not wrong to call me six feet tall; I don't mind losing 3 inches in the interest of smooth prose. Just don't call me [[Metric to English conversions|two meters]] tall! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:50, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::That's what the "about" is for-- it indicates impercision. Most useful article ever, by the way. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:59, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I took a few science courses in high school and college. You might be interested to learn about the difference between "[[accuracy]]" and "[[precision]]". (I probably should compare and contrast the two ideas in a proposed new article: [[accuracy and precision]].)

:::Here's how it's relevant to [[Pi]]. When the Bible says ten cubits, that is an approximation. Scientists would say the measurement is being given to "[[one significant figure]]". It really could be anything between 9 and 11 cubits, and it still wouldn't be wrong, because it's only an approximation, like saying that Ed Poor is six feet tall (I'm 6'3" in bare feet).

:::The ratio between the diameter of a wheel and its circumference is, roughly, three. And if you drew a circle on the ground, with a diameter of 10 cubits, you would pace off 30 cubits when you walked around the circle. [[Pacing]] is not a very precise measurement, but it's good enough for some cases. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:01, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: "''It really could be anything between 9 and 11 cubits...''": 9.5 and 10.5 actually. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:06, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Anyway, you're being too patient with a time-waster. Liberals l-o-v-e to change the subject, with distractions like the supposedly preferable spelling of sceptic. I'm sceptical of this fella's motives, and I've left a note at his talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:13, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: I would actually like him to answer my last question above, though. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::Ed: You'll get a response in the appropriate place momentarily, don't worry.
:::::Philip J. Rayment: So you have wished it, so it shall be. Response is above. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:44, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

The Bible does not provide a value for pi, so the following statement is misleading at best:

:The [[Qur'an]] also defines Pi as 3.(al-Sûra ''aleph bei'').

Use of the word "also" implies that the Bible has provided a definition. The story about the ten cubits does not define pi. It merely gives a diameter and a radius of something presumed to be circular. (A circumference of thirty is consistent with a diameter of ten, with a precision of one [[significant digit]].)

In any case, I'd like to see the exact words of an English translation of any Koran passage related to circle math before approving any claim as damaging as "defines Pi as 3." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:53, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:Over the years, I've found this to be one of the sillier arguments against the Bible. I've found that those who push it don't believe it, but only do so to try to force in a 'gotcha' that they themselves know isn't the case, but nevertheless they draw enjoyment from trying to act like it is anyway. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:48, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

==I do not like the "Pi in the Bible" section...==
...for many reasons. First, the title is misleading, as the text points out. There is no pi in the Bible (only unleaven bread--just kidding!), nor does the Bible make any attempt to define pi or ''e'' or or any other mathematical or physical constant. Second, I think the subject is out of place in an article about mathematics. Perhaps it should be a minor section in an apologetics-related article. Or be omitted entirely, as it is not really a serious criticism, but more a "baby apologetics" thing that appeals to unsophisticated Bible skeptics.

Thirdly, while I appreciate that someone has done the work of gathering the arguments in one place, the wording could be better. It says "Critics claim this, but they are making the following assumptions". Better to say "Critics say this but they are wrong for these reasons." You do not know what someone else's assumptions are.

Fourthly, a minor point. If you opt to keep this section, you might point out that when critics complain that the Bible rounds the circumference to a multiple of ten instead of something more precise (say, 31.4 cubits), they are being inconsistent, because that number is also imprecise. Because pi is irrational, there is no number that could be contained (in a finite Bible) that could give the measurement exactly. What the baby skeptics are doing here is setting an impossible condition for precision, then saying that if the Bible is imprecise it is not inerrant (another big leap in logic), and hoping that no one will notice the flaws in their reasoning.

{{unsigned|Ga ohoyt}}

:I wasn't happy with the title either (and I wrote it!), but I wasn't sure what else to have. The next best think I could think of was to put pi in quote marks: "Pi" in the Bible.
: I don't think the article is particularly out of place. The article is about pi specifically (not just "mathematics"), and this section is about pi, or at least about a claim made about pi. It is not a serious criticism in the sense of having even a shred of validity, but it is something that is ''often'' claimed by bible critics. The Skeptics Annotated Bible mentions it, for example.
: As for the mention of assumptions, no, you don't need to know what assumptions they are consciously making; there are certain assumptions ''inherent'' in the argument, which is all that the comment is saying. That is, they ''must be'' making these assumptions, even if subconsciously. That's not to say that the wording can't be altered to something better, but I do think it's acceptable as it is.
: There were a couple of other problems with the claim that I thought of mentioning, but the section was large enough already and the others were in a sense variations on the ones already mentioned, so I thought that was enough. Yes, they often claim that the value is "incorrect", but then are unable to give the "correct" value themselves (because it has an infinite number of digits). And that would be a good thing to point out if the Bible was actually claiming to give a value for pi, but as it's not, it seemed a little bit unnecessary.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:48, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Better now? [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 20:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: I'm not sure (but I don't think it's worse). I don't think it's appropriate to have a question for a heading, and neither do I think it's appropriate for the heading to be part of the flow of the text, as is now the case, because the first sentence of the section doesn't make sense without the heading. A heading should give an idea of what the section is about, not be part of the section, if you're following me. Also, the claim is not (normally) explicitly made that the Bible defines pi, as indicated by the heading. Rather, that claim is ''implicit'' in the ''explicit'' claim that the Bible has an incorrect value for pi. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:19, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

I think the section is necessary because we ''do'' periodically hear this canard about Pi, and the encyclopedia should give the reader the information he needs to respond to it. However, I think the article's response is insufficiently dismissive.

I would simply say that the numbers in the Biblical passage ''are'' correct, to their given precision. Hence there is no controversy. Likewise, if an encyclopedia gives the radius and circumference of the Earth to the nearest thousand feet, the encyclopedia is not "wrong about Pi," and nobody would seriously say it was. It seems that only in the case of the Bible are critics so impassioned as to buy such a dopey argument.

Also, I think it is too weak to say it was "common at the time to round numbers." It is common ''all the time'' to give measurements like this, and to do so without any conscious or explicit rounding. The way these bullet points are worded, they give the impression that the values D=10 and C=30 need to be explained by some hypothetical act: maybe someone rounded a measurement, maybe they measured different parts of the rim, etc. But D=10 and C=30 does not need any of these explanations because, as I said, they are correct to their given precision, and there is no discrepancy that needs to be explained. I'd just remove them, lest they contribute to the sense of false controversy.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

== Question on the Bible reference ==

Were decimals and fractions even in use in the Holy Land at the time 1 Kings was written? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:26, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
: Decimals, no, I think. Fractions, yes, to some extent, I think. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:39, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

== Pi contains pi ==
''The infinite length of ostensibly random decimal points in means that it contains the equivalent of every book ever written, every birthday, and every other number.''

That is quite a misleading statement: Pi (most probably) contains any '''finite''' sequence of numbers, therefore any book or birthday date can be "found", e.g., encoded as ascii.

But saying that pi contains "every other number" implies that it contains every number like pi, i.e., every real number. That is obviously wrong. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 08:42, July 11, 2021 (EDT)
:"Obviously wrong"??? Here is my proof by induction:
::1. pi contains pi as one significant digit in a finite representation ("3": 3.14159265'''3'''....)
::2. assume pi contains pi as ''n'' significant digits in a finite representation of pi. Pi must also contain pi as ''n+1'' significant digits as the number of digits of pi is stretched to [[infinity]].
:Q.E.D.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 13:06, July 29, 2021 (EDT)

::Could you explain what you mean by "pi contains pi" exactly? Usually, when looking for birthdays, you would look for a consecutive string of six numbers. And mathematicians are certain that you could find the text of "Hamlet" if you take π mod 26 as a unbroken string. That seems to be different from your idea to find pi... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 15:25, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
:::Not different at all. "Pi contains pi" means what it says: the full pi within pi. [[Infinity denial]] appears to be an obstacle here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:38, July 29, 2021 (EDT)

:::For clarification: π containing π means that there is a consecutive sequence of digits in π (not starting from the first one) which equals π? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:07, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
::::Right, as I proved above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:13, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
:::::Sorry for being a little bit thick (or nitpicking) - perhaps I have difficulties because English isn't my first language... OTOH: mathematics is universal!
:::::You are saying that there is a infinite and unbroken sequence of digits in the representation of π (not starting with the first significant digit) equal to π ?
:::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:34, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
::::::Yes. Repeatedly asking for clarification of something that is clear could be the result of denial, in this case [[infinity denial]]. I don't think the disconnect has anything to do with communication in [[English]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:59, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
:::::As an uninformed, disinterested bystander, I don't see how infinity can be defined by any limited, confined, or known values. Infinity may contain xn number of dimensions, for all we know. How is this so hard to comprehend for people who theorize about life on other planets? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 23:09, July 29, 2021 (EDT)

Doing math in a natural language is sometimes difficult. Luckily, we can get rid of ambiguities by trying to formalize statements.I hope we can agree on the following:<blockquote>If x0.x1x2x3x4x5...... is the digital expansion of π, then a "infinite and unbroken sequence of digits in the representation of π (not starting with the first significant digit) equal to π" is given by xnxn+1xn+2xn+3xn+4xn+5......, with xn=3, xn+1=1, xn+2= 4, xn+3=1, and so on and n being a natural number</blockquote>
Thank you for your patience! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 01:38, July 30, 2021 (EDT)
:Yes, that's right. The aspect of [[infinity]] illustrated by the observation that [[pi]] contains pi is similar to several of the [[miracle]]s and [[parable]]s in the [[New Testament]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 13:10, July 30, 2021 (EDT)

From your "induction proof", I got the impression that you were looking for increasingly long strings resembling the leading digits of π - I looked up the first few for you:
{|
|'''x9'''x10||=||'''3'''5
|-
|'''x137x138'''x139||=||'''31'''7
|-
|'''x2120x2121x2122'''x2123||=||'''314'''2
|-
|'''x3496x3497x3498x3499'''x3450||=||'''3141'''2
|-
|'''x88008x88009x88010x88011x88012'''x88013||=||'''31415'''1
|-
|'''x146451x146452x146453x146454x146455x146456x146457'''x146458||=||'''314159'''7
|-
|'''x25198140x25198141x25198142x25198143x25198144x25198145x25198146x251981407'''x25198148||=||'''3141592'''1
|}

But this does not imply that the whole digital representation of π can be found as a consecutive string in π again. In fact, that is impossible.

Yours statement is like saying that as 1, 11, 111, 1111, 11.111, 111.111 and so on are natural numbers, an infinite string of 1s is a natural number, too: And I hope we can agree that this is a false statement.
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:41, July 30, 2021 (EDT)
:Your superb examples demonstrate that if true for "n" significant digits, then one can be found later having "n+1" significant digits. This reinforces the proof by induction. I don't see any support for your assertion "that is impossible." I also don't see any connection to your hypothesis about whether an infinite string of 1s is a "natural number," which is simply a matter of definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 21:30, July 30, 2021 (EDT)

::*''Your superb examples demonstrate that if true for "n" significant digits, then one can be found later having "n+1" significant digits.'' Thanks! But a few examples make no proof.
::*''This reinforces the proof by induction.'' No. It does not. As no one has proofed that π is a [[normal number]], your "proof by induction" is on shaky grounds.
::*''I don't see any support for your assertion "that is impossible."'' I put it at [[Talk:Conservapedia insights#Proof that π does not contain π:]] - it is somewhat of an overkill:
{|
|style="background-color:pink"|
#π is given as a digital expansion x0.x1x2x3x4x5...
#"finding π in π" means that there is an index n such that π starts all over again at xn
#If π starts again at n, then x0 = xn = 3, x1 = xn+1 = 1, x2 = xn+2 = 4, x3 = xn+3 = 1 and so on. "And so on" means that xk = xk+n for each natural number k, i.e.,. k ∈ N0.
#What happens if k equals n? What is the value of xn + n? According to the step above, xn + n =xn. But xn=x0=3 ! So, xn + n = xn=x0=3
#That's true for all multiples of n: if w ∈ N0, then xw n = x(w-1) n = .... = x2 n = xn = x0 = 3.
#What about xw n +k ( 0 ≤ k < n )? Again, xw n +k = x(w-1) n +k = x(w-2) n +k = x2 n +k = xn +k = xk
#So, for every natural number w and every number k with 0 ≤ k < n we have: xw n +k = xk. That makes π periodic, the length of the period is n.
#Therefore, π can be written as x0x1x2x3...xn-1 / (10n-1 -1) . But this is a rational number, and we know that π is irrational.
#We have a classical contradiction: As our result is wrong, our assumption that π is contained in π has to be wrong.
|}
::*''I also don't see any connection to your hypothesis about whether an infinite string of 1s is a "natural number," which is simply a matter of definition.'' In general, infinity is a difficult concept. But the simplest form of infinity is being "countably infinite". You should make yourself familiar with this concept. Then you would recognize that there is a difference between the statements:
::::#''a sequence contains a countably infinite number of finite sub-sequences with a certain property'' and
::::#''a sequence contains a countably infinite sub-sequence with a certain property''
:::The first statement does not imply the second one. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:44, July 31, 2021 (EDT)
::::Your proposed proof has the fallacy of assuming a termination on an infinite sequence (and thus periodicity). There is no such termination.
::::Your criticism of my proof by induction is also flawed. Do you really think that your examples for n and n+1 will stop existing in the infinite sequence of digits for [[pi]], at some large n? Your position essentially denies the extent of [[infinity]].
::::[[Infinity]] has no such limit. Embrace its vastness and make it work for you. It can be enormously beneficial at a personal level for someone's outlook, and not something to be resisted through [[infinity denial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:25, July 31, 2021 (EDT)

*"''Your proposed proof has the fallacy of assuming a termination on an infinite sequence (and thus periodicity). There is no such termination.''" That sounds impressive. The proof does not assume "a termination on an infinite sequence" - whatever you mean by this.
*"''Your criticism of my proof by induction is also flawed.''" I have been reluctant to address what you call your "proof by induction" - there is no way to do this charitably. But you forced my hand:

===Andrew Schlafly's "Proof by Induction"===
{|
|style="background-color:pink"|π contains π as one significant digit in a finite representation ("3": 3.14159265'''3'''....)
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|That's your '''base case''': as π does not equal 3, the sentence "π contains π as one significant digit" is wrong on face value. But, I assume you wanted to say something like "π contains a approximation of π of length 1." So, well done, I'll give you that. Now for the two parts of the '''induction step''':
|-
|style="background-color:pink"|assume π contains π as ''n'' significant digits in a finite representation of π
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|again, your '''induction hypothesis''' is okay: I'd use the phrase "approximation of π of length ''n''", but let's not quibble.
|-
|style="background-color:pink"|π must also contain π as ''n+1'' significant digits as the number of digits of π is stretched to [[infinity]]
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|'''''What? Why should this be true?''''' Mathematicians have not proofed yet that π is a [[normal number]]! You can easily construct a irrational number which contains an approximation of π of length 1010,000, but no approximation of length 1010,000 + 1 . Perhaps God constructed π this way - just to teach mathematicians a little humility. No one knows yet.
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|But even if your conclusion was true, you would have proofed only that π contains approximations of every imaginable '''''finite''''' length - not of '''''infinite length'''''. That is the same principle which allows you to count to every number, but never reach infinity.
|-
|style="background-color:pink"|Q.E.D.
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|Yeah, that's funny.
|}

Andy, I know that you will not be convinced by my arguments (even if you have read them) - you never are. But while getting something wrong in classical Greek makes you look uneducated to a very small minority of readers, being wrong when it comes to the concept of countable infinity makes you look stupid in the eyes of quite a bigger audience.

But therein lies a chance: I assume that you have no one in your circle of friends with whom you could discuss Koine, but I hope that there are mathematically educated persons whom you know: perhaps a high-school teacher, a mathematician (even a student will do) or a physicist, or someone else with comparable background? Ask them: get their help.

Seriously, yours [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:06, August 1, 2021 (EDT)
:Your [[infinity denial]] is illogical. I urge you to welcome and embrace [[infinity]] (yes, by implication [[eternity]]), and use it for your own benefit. I want you to realize all the happiness and glory it provides.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:52, August 2, 2021 (EDT)
::Are you still talking about mathematics? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:00, August 2, 2021 (EDT)

"assume pi contains pi as n significant digits in a finite representation of pi. Pi must also contain pi as n+1 significant digits" - so pi (assuming it's a normal number, as Augusto said) contains any truncated version of pi of any finite length (no matter how many zillions of digits). An infinite number of each truncation. It would also imply that any finite string of digits of pi would be replicated an infinite number of times elsewhere in the string of digits.

"as the number of digits of pi is stretched to infinity." Is it necessary that the pi within pi start at a digit infinitely far from the first digit? That would get around the periodicity issue.

The mathstack discussion:
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1608060/does-pi-contain-itself

I kind of like the idea of two points on a line being infinitely far from each other, with a third halfway in between, but I don't think that's part of the current standard set of axioms.

We're ignoring the decimal point, right? There's only one of those. Anyway, this is a pretty interesting discussion. [[User:AlChesapeake|AlChesapeake]]
:Right, this is ignoring the decimal point. I like your insight that "pi within pi [would] start at a digit infinitely far from the first digit." I think you're right about that, to get around the periodicity issue, and I'll add that now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 20:59, September 2, 2021 (EDT)

::I am at a loss concerning the proof by induction though - if we start at one digit, then to two, adding one repeatedly, that number will still be an integer, a real number, which (as stated in [[infinity]]) cannot be infinity. No matter how large it gets, it's still a finite number. This proves it for all integers n, but infinity isn't in the set of integers. It's beyond! ha ha (that's my attempt at levity) [[User:AlChesapeake|AlChesapeake]] September 4, 2021

===Linking to this section from the article===
Andy, do you really think that it is a good idea to link to the above section '''on a talk-page''' from the main article on [[pi|π]]? And please, read the discussion! (ups, that was the second sentence of this paragraph - you probably already started skipping...) --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 05:23, August 3, 2021 (EDT)

Talk:Pi

2021-09-04T14:29:36Z

AlChesapeake: induction question

Answering the question posed in the article, "As of 2002, the record is held by Yasumasa Kanada of Tokyo University at 1,241,100,000,000 digits. That result was never printed out: can you figure out why not?"

An ordinary printed page can hold about 5,000 digits.

To print 1,241,100,000,000 digits would require 248,220,000 pages, or 496,440 reams of paper. A ream of paper is the size of a large book. It would take a building the size of a city library to hold the printed output. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 23:08, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Counting the letters in the phrase "Now I wish I had a drink—alcoholic, of course" '''Does not help because it gives a wrong answer.''' it gives 3(.)141315926, it should be 3.1415926...
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:54, 15 January 2007 (EST)

*Yikes! I'm going to have to turn in my geek badge. It should be "How I want a drink--alcoholic of course." I was mixing it with "How I wish I could recollect pi easily today." Sorry. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:16, 16 January 2007 (EST)

So I'm assuming by the change back to the old version, my revision was no good. An explanation why would be nice, though. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 21:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Groan==

What was I thinking here? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pi&curid=4960&diff=71562&oldid=71280&rcid=74105]

113 '''divided into''' 355 like this:

3.14156.....
---------
113|355.00000

I had 1/pi by mistake - not even an approximation, more like an abomination. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:44, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== I like Pi ==

Pi R Squared? No they're not, Pie are round. Brownies are square. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:LOL. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:08, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

==22/7==
Besides the fact that "Pi is exactly 3!", 22/7 is also a repeating decimal.
Pi is also known as Archimedes' constant, Ludolphine, and Ludolph's Number.
Ludolph van Ceulen (Germany) spent a great deal of time calculating digits of pi. The number is engraved on his tombstone. If I were to get buried, I would have all the digits I memorized engraved on it, but I want to get cremated instead. [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 10:16, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:It is not true that Pi is exactly 3. What is your suggestion to improve the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:31, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

::I haven't said anything about my beliefs, let's just leave my life out of this, eh? And, with you saying that pi=3, are you suggesting CP completely rewrites this article? [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 10:39, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::If you are not claiming that pi = 3, then that makes two of us. :-)
:::I've made a few updates to the article, primarily about scriptural references and historical estimates. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:41, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

==Is the Bible wrong about pi?==

In the ancient world, measurements were not given as exact as they are today, and that was generally considered acceptable.
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/piwrong.html [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Who said it was wrong? Sloppy ancients aren't nessecarily wrong ancients. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:25, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::So, can I reinsert the Bibical perspective? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:15, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::It's not relevant simply to note that the Bible happens to approximate it in passing. However, many use it as an argument to show that the Bible is errant, and that's what I surmise may have been the purpose for its inclusion [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:35, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Wait. The Bible's interpretation of Pi is not relevant to Pi? What? Look, friend, the Bible is always relevant. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:14, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::You admit you're an atheist on your user page. Why are you so interested in inserting this in there? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:15, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::I admit I'm an atheist-- You say it like it's a bad thing. I'm not trying to stat a fight, Dan, I just figure that, as a wiki with a majority of users that are Christian, it would be good to include the Biblical perspective on matters where it has spoken, as is done in [[shrimp]]. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:18, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:I didn't realize that was still in [[shrimp]]. Anyways, as the article posted above explains, the numbers were not meant to be exact, and the circumference and diameter may have been given as approximate estimates, but pi wasn't a concept that most people knew about or cared about. The Bible wasn't meaning to comment on pi at that point, only at the relevant calculations. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:24, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::That's great, Dan. You seem pretty hostile to the Bible. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:16, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't see how Dan seems to be "pretty hostile to the Bible". Your insertion was simply wrong, as the Bible is not trying to give a value for pi at all. Besides, the Bible reference which is frequently quoted by bibliosceptics as supposedly representing pi is already in the article, and even that warrants being removed (in that form) in my opinion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Oh... So anything a skeptic quotes must be purged, then? What is the purpose of the verse if not to show the value of pi? Furthermore, how do you know what the Bible is and is not trying to say, Philip? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:48, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Also, bibliosceptics is A: Spelled wrong and B: a word which would translate as "Skeptical of books." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:49, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, bugger. It seems I didn't notice that the verse was already quoted in the History section. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:51, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::: I didn't say that anything a sceptic quotes should be purged.
::: What's the purpose if not to show the value of pi? To ''describe the object's size'', genius!
::: What is incorrect about the spelling of "bibliosceptics"? Yes, the word ''could'' mean "sceptical of books", but as "Bible" means "book", it's appropriate to use it to mean "sceptical of the Bible".
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:03, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::"Besides, the Bible reference which is frequently quoted by bibliosceptics as supposedly representing pi is already in the article, and even that warrants being removed (in that form) in my opinion." That's exactly what you said, Philip!
::::Then why not describe it ''correctly''?
::::Skeptics. With a K. Also: Yes. I know it means book. Your use of faux Latin does not make you smarter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: That quote of mine does not indicate that ''anything'' a sceptic quotes should be purged, and neither does it say that that bit should be removed ''because it's something a sceptic quotes''.
::::: Aussies traditionally spell "sceptic" with a "c", hence my use of "bibliosceptic" rather than "biblioskeptic".
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

A fourth consecutive edit, because a thought occurs. How can we be sure that man's measurements are correct in this case but the Bible is not? Furthermore, if the Bible is wrong here, how can we logically accept that everything else is exact-- IE, the age of the Earth? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:56, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
: What reason is there to think that the Bible's measurements are incorrect? The logic of your question is valid, but the premise (that the Bible is incorrect) is not. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:05, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::Well, if it's ten cubits from one side to the other, it should be 31 all around, if we're rounding. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: What if it was actually 9.7 cubits (rounded to 10) from one side to the other? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Then the measurement given is, quite simply, wrong. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:44, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: Huh? Okay, I'll have to spell it out for you. If (and this is not the only possible explanation) the ''actual'' diameter was 9.7 cubits, then the ''actual'' radius would be 30.47 cubits. If ''both'' of those figures are rounded to the nearest cubit, then the diameter would be listed as 10 cubits and the circumference would be listed as 30 cubits. And guess what! That's what the Bible lists them as! So if this is correct (and it doesn't have to be exactly that: it could be 9.6 cubits for example), then the Bible is perfectly accurate! ("Accurate" is a different thing to "precise", as Ed mentions below.) If you still aren't convinced, have a look at the links in the External Links section of the article, particularly the Math Forum one. In fact, don't reply here unless you first read the three links. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:03, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::Yes. Rounding. I get it. It's impercise. If I say Ed is six feet tall, I'm wrong because he's not. If I say he's ''about'' six feet tall, I'm right, because he's just over six feet tall. Is that so hard to understand, Philip? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:06, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Alright. Scanned through the links. I get it-- God couldn't be arsed to tell the lowly Earthers a more prescise number. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:51, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: You've earned yourself another block for that arrogant response.
::::::::: If Ed is 6 feet, 3.02 inches tall, would you refer to him as "about 6'3" tall"? The articles said nothing about God not telling us a more precise number. The first link points out that their measurements would not be that precise to start with. In this case, they are not rounding, but simply measuring with a course measuring device. The second reference pointed out that it was common to round numbers in those times. Insisting on using the word "about" is really a case of you expecting people from 3000 years ago to follow your conventions. It doesn't mean that they got anything wrong. The third reference pointed out the following:
:::::::::* "''...in the absence of an explicit indication of precision, the absence of a tenths digit implies that the figure is accurate to the nearest 1 cubit...''". So the measurements were accurate to within the implied level of precision!
:::::::::* "''Every measurement we ever make is an approximation.''". So do you preface ''every'' measurement with "about"? (That's the point of my question above about Ed being 6'3.02" tall.) Absence of the word "about" does ''not'' mean that the measurement is "wrong".
::::::::: You acknowledged none of those points in your response, instead making a silly comment about God. It's clear that you simply want to argue a point that has been thoroughly refuted, and you've stopped doing so civilly. Hence your block. Learn from it.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:55, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::You're not wrong to call me six feet tall; I don't mind losing 3 inches in the interest of smooth prose. Just don't call me [[Metric to English conversions|two meters]] tall! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:50, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::That's what the "about" is for-- it indicates impercision. Most useful article ever, by the way. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:59, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I took a few science courses in high school and college. You might be interested to learn about the difference between "[[accuracy]]" and "[[precision]]". (I probably should compare and contrast the two ideas in a proposed new article: [[accuracy and precision]].)

:::Here's how it's relevant to [[Pi]]. When the Bible says ten cubits, that is an approximation. Scientists would say the measurement is being given to "[[one significant figure]]". It really could be anything between 9 and 11 cubits, and it still wouldn't be wrong, because it's only an approximation, like saying that Ed Poor is six feet tall (I'm 6'3" in bare feet).

:::The ratio between the diameter of a wheel and its circumference is, roughly, three. And if you drew a circle on the ground, with a diameter of 10 cubits, you would pace off 30 cubits when you walked around the circle. [[Pacing]] is not a very precise measurement, but it's good enough for some cases. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:01, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: "''It really could be anything between 9 and 11 cubits...''": 9.5 and 10.5 actually. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:06, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Anyway, you're being too patient with a time-waster. Liberals l-o-v-e to change the subject, with distractions like the supposedly preferable spelling of sceptic. I'm sceptical of this fella's motives, and I've left a note at his talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:13, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: I would actually like him to answer my last question above, though. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::Ed: You'll get a response in the appropriate place momentarily, don't worry.
:::::Philip J. Rayment: So you have wished it, so it shall be. Response is above. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:44, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

The Bible does not provide a value for pi, so the following statement is misleading at best:

:The [[Qur'an]] also defines Pi as 3.(al-Sûra ''aleph bei'').

Use of the word "also" implies that the Bible has provided a definition. The story about the ten cubits does not define pi. It merely gives a diameter and a radius of something presumed to be circular. (A circumference of thirty is consistent with a diameter of ten, with a precision of one [[significant digit]].)

In any case, I'd like to see the exact words of an English translation of any Koran passage related to circle math before approving any claim as damaging as "defines Pi as 3." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:53, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:Over the years, I've found this to be one of the sillier arguments against the Bible. I've found that those who push it don't believe it, but only do so to try to force in a 'gotcha' that they themselves know isn't the case, but nevertheless they draw enjoyment from trying to act like it is anyway. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:48, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

==I do not like the "Pi in the Bible" section...==
...for many reasons. First, the title is misleading, as the text points out. There is no pi in the Bible (only unleaven bread--just kidding!), nor does the Bible make any attempt to define pi or ''e'' or or any other mathematical or physical constant. Second, I think the subject is out of place in an article about mathematics. Perhaps it should be a minor section in an apologetics-related article. Or be omitted entirely, as it is not really a serious criticism, but more a "baby apologetics" thing that appeals to unsophisticated Bible skeptics.

Thirdly, while I appreciate that someone has done the work of gathering the arguments in one place, the wording could be better. It says "Critics claim this, but they are making the following assumptions". Better to say "Critics say this but they are wrong for these reasons." You do not know what someone else's assumptions are.

Fourthly, a minor point. If you opt to keep this section, you might point out that when critics complain that the Bible rounds the circumference to a multiple of ten instead of something more precise (say, 31.4 cubits), they are being inconsistent, because that number is also imprecise. Because pi is irrational, there is no number that could be contained (in a finite Bible) that could give the measurement exactly. What the baby skeptics are doing here is setting an impossible condition for precision, then saying that if the Bible is imprecise it is not inerrant (another big leap in logic), and hoping that no one will notice the flaws in their reasoning.

{{unsigned|Ga ohoyt}}

:I wasn't happy with the title either (and I wrote it!), but I wasn't sure what else to have. The next best think I could think of was to put pi in quote marks: "Pi" in the Bible.
: I don't think the article is particularly out of place. The article is about pi specifically (not just "mathematics"), and this section is about pi, or at least about a claim made about pi. It is not a serious criticism in the sense of having even a shred of validity, but it is something that is ''often'' claimed by bible critics. The Skeptics Annotated Bible mentions it, for example.
: As for the mention of assumptions, no, you don't need to know what assumptions they are consciously making; there are certain assumptions ''inherent'' in the argument, which is all that the comment is saying. That is, they ''must be'' making these assumptions, even if subconsciously. That's not to say that the wording can't be altered to something better, but I do think it's acceptable as it is.
: There were a couple of other problems with the claim that I thought of mentioning, but the section was large enough already and the others were in a sense variations on the ones already mentioned, so I thought that was enough. Yes, they often claim that the value is "incorrect", but then are unable to give the "correct" value themselves (because it has an infinite number of digits). And that would be a good thing to point out if the Bible was actually claiming to give a value for pi, but as it's not, it seemed a little bit unnecessary.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:48, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Better now? [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 20:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: I'm not sure (but I don't think it's worse). I don't think it's appropriate to have a question for a heading, and neither do I think it's appropriate for the heading to be part of the flow of the text, as is now the case, because the first sentence of the section doesn't make sense without the heading. A heading should give an idea of what the section is about, not be part of the section, if you're following me. Also, the claim is not (normally) explicitly made that the Bible defines pi, as indicated by the heading. Rather, that claim is ''implicit'' in the ''explicit'' claim that the Bible has an incorrect value for pi. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:19, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

I think the section is necessary because we ''do'' periodically hear this canard about Pi, and the encyclopedia should give the reader the information he needs to respond to it. However, I think the article's response is insufficiently dismissive.

I would simply say that the numbers in the Biblical passage ''are'' correct, to their given precision. Hence there is no controversy. Likewise, if an encyclopedia gives the radius and circumference of the Earth to the nearest thousand feet, the encyclopedia is not "wrong about Pi," and nobody would seriously say it was. It seems that only in the case of the Bible are critics so impassioned as to buy such a dopey argument.

Also, I think it is too weak to say it was "common at the time to round numbers." It is common ''all the time'' to give measurements like this, and to do so without any conscious or explicit rounding. The way these bullet points are worded, they give the impression that the values D=10 and C=30 need to be explained by some hypothetical act: maybe someone rounded a measurement, maybe they measured different parts of the rim, etc. But D=10 and C=30 does not need any of these explanations because, as I said, they are correct to their given precision, and there is no discrepancy that needs to be explained. I'd just remove them, lest they contribute to the sense of false controversy.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

== Question on the Bible reference ==

Were decimals and fractions even in use in the Holy Land at the time 1 Kings was written? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:26, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
: Decimals, no, I think. Fractions, yes, to some extent, I think. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:39, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

== Pi contains pi ==
''The infinite length of ostensibly random decimal points in means that it contains the equivalent of every book ever written, every birthday, and every other number.''

That is quite a misleading statement: Pi (most probably) contains any '''finite''' sequence of numbers, therefore any book or birthday date can be "found", e.g., encoded as ascii.

But saying that pi contains "every other number" implies that it contains every number like pi, i.e., every real number. That is obviously wrong. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 08:42, July 11, 2021 (EDT)
:"Obviously wrong"??? Here is my proof by induction:
::1. pi contains pi as one significant digit in a finite representation ("3": 3.14159265'''3'''....)
::2. assume pi contains pi as ''n'' significant digits in a finite representation of pi. Pi must also contain pi as ''n+1'' significant digits as the number of digits of pi is stretched to [[infinity]].
:Q.E.D.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 13:06, July 29, 2021 (EDT)

::Could you explain what you mean by "pi contains pi" exactly? Usually, when looking for birthdays, you would look for a consecutive string of six numbers. And mathematicians are certain that you could find the text of "Hamlet" if you take π mod 26 as a unbroken string. That seems to be different from your idea to find pi... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 15:25, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
:::Not different at all. "Pi contains pi" means what it says: the full pi within pi. [[Infinity denial]] appears to be an obstacle here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:38, July 29, 2021 (EDT)

:::For clarification: π containing π means that there is a consecutive sequence of digits in π (not starting from the first one) which equals π? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:07, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
::::Right, as I proved above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:13, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
:::::Sorry for being a little bit thick (or nitpicking) - perhaps I have difficulties because English isn't my first language... OTOH: mathematics is universal!
:::::You are saying that there is a infinite and unbroken sequence of digits in the representation of π (not starting with the first significant digit) equal to π ?
:::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:34, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
::::::Yes. Repeatedly asking for clarification of something that is clear could be the result of denial, in this case [[infinity denial]]. I don't think the disconnect has anything to do with communication in [[English]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:59, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
:::::As an uninformed, disinterested bystander, I don't see how infinity can be defined by any limited, confined, or known values. Infinity may contain xn number of dimensions, for all we know. How is this so hard to comprehend for people who theorize about life on other planets? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 23:09, July 29, 2021 (EDT)

Doing math in a natural language is sometimes difficult. Luckily, we can get rid of ambiguities by trying to formalize statements.I hope we can agree on the following:<blockquote>If x0.x1x2x3x4x5...... is the digital expansion of π, then a "infinite and unbroken sequence of digits in the representation of π (not starting with the first significant digit) equal to π" is given by xnxn+1xn+2xn+3xn+4xn+5......, with xn=3, xn+1=1, xn+2= 4, xn+3=1, and so on and n being a natural number</blockquote>
Thank you for your patience! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 01:38, July 30, 2021 (EDT)
:Yes, that's right. The aspect of [[infinity]] illustrated by the observation that [[pi]] contains pi is similar to several of the [[miracle]]s and [[parable]]s in the [[New Testament]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 13:10, July 30, 2021 (EDT)

From your "induction proof", I got the impression that you were looking for increasingly long strings resembling the leading digits of π - I looked up the first few for you:
{|
|'''x9'''x10||=||'''3'''5
|-
|'''x137x138'''x139||=||'''31'''7
|-
|'''x2120x2121x2122'''x2123||=||'''314'''2
|-
|'''x3496x3497x3498x3499'''x3450||=||'''3141'''2
|-
|'''x88008x88009x88010x88011x88012'''x88013||=||'''31415'''1
|-
|'''x146451x146452x146453x146454x146455x146456x146457'''x146458||=||'''314159'''7
|-
|'''x25198140x25198141x25198142x25198143x25198144x25198145x25198146x251981407'''x25198148||=||'''3141592'''1
|}

But this does not imply that the whole digital representation of π can be found as a consecutive string in π again. In fact, that is impossible.

Yours statement is like saying that as 1, 11, 111, 1111, 11.111, 111.111 and so on are natural numbers, an infinite string of 1s is a natural number, too: And I hope we can agree that this is a false statement.
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:41, July 30, 2021 (EDT)
:Your superb examples demonstrate that if true for "n" significant digits, then one can be found later having "n+1" significant digits. This reinforces the proof by induction. I don't see any support for your assertion "that is impossible." I also don't see any connection to your hypothesis about whether an infinite string of 1s is a "natural number," which is simply a matter of definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 21:30, July 30, 2021 (EDT)

::*''Your superb examples demonstrate that if true for "n" significant digits, then one can be found later having "n+1" significant digits.'' Thanks! But a few examples make no proof.
::*''This reinforces the proof by induction.'' No. It does not. As no one has proofed that π is a [[normal number]], your "proof by induction" is on shaky grounds.
::*''I don't see any support for your assertion "that is impossible."'' I put it at [[Talk:Conservapedia insights#Proof that π does not contain π:]] - it is somewhat of an overkill:
{|
|style="background-color:pink"|
#π is given as a digital expansion x0.x1x2x3x4x5...
#"finding π in π" means that there is an index n such that π starts all over again at xn
#If π starts again at n, then x0 = xn = 3, x1 = xn+1 = 1, x2 = xn+2 = 4, x3 = xn+3 = 1 and so on. "And so on" means that xk = xk+n for each natural number k, i.e.,. k ∈ N0.
#What happens if k equals n? What is the value of xn + n? According to the step above, xn + n =xn. But xn=x0=3 ! So, xn + n = xn=x0=3
#That's true for all multiples of n: if w ∈ N0, then xw n = x(w-1) n = .... = x2 n = xn = x0 = 3.
#What about xw n +k ( 0 ≤ k < n )? Again, xw n +k = x(w-1) n +k = x(w-2) n +k = x2 n +k = xn +k = xk
#So, for every natural number w and every number k with 0 ≤ k < n we have: xw n +k = xk. That makes π periodic, the length of the period is n.
#Therefore, π can be written as x0x1x2x3...xn-1 / (10n-1 -1) . But this is a rational number, and we know that π is irrational.
#We have a classical contradiction: As our result is wrong, our assumption that π is contained in π has to be wrong.
|}
::*''I also don't see any connection to your hypothesis about whether an infinite string of 1s is a "natural number," which is simply a matter of definition.'' In general, infinity is a difficult concept. But the simplest form of infinity is being "countably infinite". You should make yourself familiar with this concept. Then you would recognize that there is a difference between the statements:
::::#''a sequence contains a countably infinite number of finite sub-sequences with a certain property'' and
::::#''a sequence contains a countably infinite sub-sequence with a certain property''
:::The first statement does not imply the second one. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:44, July 31, 2021 (EDT)
::::Your proposed proof has the fallacy of assuming a termination on an infinite sequence (and thus periodicity). There is no such termination.
::::Your criticism of my proof by induction is also flawed. Do you really think that your examples for n and n+1 will stop existing in the infinite sequence of digits for [[pi]], at some large n? Your position essentially denies the extent of [[infinity]].
::::[[Infinity]] has no such limit. Embrace its vastness and make it work for you. It can be enormously beneficial at a personal level for someone's outlook, and not something to be resisted through [[infinity denial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:25, July 31, 2021 (EDT)

*"''Your proposed proof has the fallacy of assuming a termination on an infinite sequence (and thus periodicity). There is no such termination.''" That sounds impressive. The proof does not assume "a termination on an infinite sequence" - whatever you mean by this.
*"''Your criticism of my proof by induction is also flawed.''" I have been reluctant to address what you call your "proof by induction" - there is no way to do this charitably. But you forced my hand:

===Andrew Schlafly's "Proof by Induction"===
{|
|style="background-color:pink"|π contains π as one significant digit in a finite representation ("3": 3.14159265'''3'''....)
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|That's your '''base case''': as π does not equal 3, the sentence "π contains π as one significant digit" is wrong on face value. But, I assume you wanted to say something like "π contains a approximation of π of length 1." So, well done, I'll give you that. Now for the two parts of the '''induction step''':
|-
|style="background-color:pink"|assume π contains π as ''n'' significant digits in a finite representation of π
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|again, your '''induction hypothesis''' is okay: I'd use the phrase "approximation of π of length ''n''", but let's not quibble.
|-
|style="background-color:pink"|π must also contain π as ''n+1'' significant digits as the number of digits of π is stretched to [[infinity]]
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|'''''What? Why should this be true?''''' Mathematicians have not proofed yet that π is a [[normal number]]! You can easily construct a irrational number which contains an approximation of π of length 1010,000, but no approximation of length 1010,000 + 1 . Perhaps God constructed π this way - just to teach mathematicians a little humility. No one knows yet.
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|But even if your conclusion was true, you would have proofed only that π contains approximations of every imaginable '''''finite''''' length - not of '''''infinite length'''''. That is the same principle which allows you to count to every number, but never reach infinity.
|-
|style="background-color:pink"|Q.E.D.
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|Yeah, that's funny.
|}

Andy, I know that you will not be convinced by my arguments (even if you have read them) - you never are. But while getting something wrong in classical Greek makes you look uneducated to a very small minority of readers, being wrong when it comes to the concept of countable infinity makes you look stupid in the eyes of quite a bigger audience.

But therein lies a chance: I assume that you have no one in your circle of friends with whom you could discuss Koine, but I hope that there are mathematically educated persons whom you know: perhaps a high-school teacher, a mathematician (even a student will do) or a physicist, or someone else with comparable background? Ask them: get their help.

Seriously, yours [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:06, August 1, 2021 (EDT)
:Your [[infinity denial]] is illogical. I urge you to welcome and embrace [[infinity]] (yes, by implication [[eternity]]), and use it for your own benefit. I want you to realize all the happiness and glory it provides.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:52, August 2, 2021 (EDT)
::Are you still talking about mathematics? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:00, August 2, 2021 (EDT)

"assume pi contains pi as n significant digits in a finite representation of pi. Pi must also contain pi as n+1 significant digits" - so pi (assuming it's a normal number, as Augusto said) contains any truncated version of pi of any finite length (no matter how many zillions of digits). An infinite number of each truncation. It would also imply that any finite string of digits of pi would be replicated an infinite number of times elsewhere in the string of digits.

"as the number of digits of pi is stretched to infinity." Is it necessary that the pi within pi start at a digit infinitely far from the first digit? That would get around the periodicity issue.

The mathstack discussion:
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1608060/does-pi-contain-itself

I kind of like the idea of two points on a line being infinitely far from each other, with a third halfway in between, but I don't think that's part of the current standard set of axioms.

We're ignoring the decimal point, right? There's only one of those. Anyway, this is a pretty interesting discussion. [[User:AlChesapeake|AlChesapeake]]
:Right, this is ignoring the decimal point. I like your insight that "pi within pi [would] start at a digit infinitely far from the first digit." I think you're right about that, to get around the periodicity issue, and I'll add that now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 20:59, September 2, 2021 (EDT)

::I am at a loss concerning the proof by induction though - if we start at one digit, then to two, adding one repeatedly, that number will still be an integer, a real number, which (as stated in [[infinity]]) cannot be infinity. No matter how large it gets, it's still a finite number. This proves it for all integers n, but infinity isn't in the set of integers. It's beyond! ha ha [[User:AlChesapeake|AlChesapeake]]

===Linking to this section from the article===
Andy, do you really think that it is a good idea to link to the above section '''on a talk-page''' from the main article on [[pi|π]]? And please, read the discussion! (ups, that was the second sentence of this paragraph - you probably already started skipping...) --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 05:23, August 3, 2021 (EDT)

Talk:Pi

2021-09-03T00:10:33Z

AlChesapeake: added username

Answering the question posed in the article, "As of 2002, the record is held by Yasumasa Kanada of Tokyo University at 1,241,100,000,000 digits. That result was never printed out: can you figure out why not?"

An ordinary printed page can hold about 5,000 digits.

To print 1,241,100,000,000 digits would require 248,220,000 pages, or 496,440 reams of paper. A ream of paper is the size of a large book. It would take a building the size of a city library to hold the printed output. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 23:08, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Counting the letters in the phrase "Now I wish I had a drink—alcoholic, of course" '''Does not help because it gives a wrong answer.''' it gives 3(.)141315926, it should be 3.1415926...
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:54, 15 January 2007 (EST)

*Yikes! I'm going to have to turn in my geek badge. It should be "How I want a drink--alcoholic of course." I was mixing it with "How I wish I could recollect pi easily today." Sorry. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:16, 16 January 2007 (EST)

So I'm assuming by the change back to the old version, my revision was no good. An explanation why would be nice, though. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 21:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Groan==

What was I thinking here? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pi&curid=4960&diff=71562&oldid=71280&rcid=74105]

113 '''divided into''' 355 like this:

3.14156.....
---------
113|355.00000

I had 1/pi by mistake - not even an approximation, more like an abomination. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:44, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== I like Pi ==

Pi R Squared? No they're not, Pie are round. Brownies are square. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:LOL. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:08, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

==22/7==
Besides the fact that "Pi is exactly 3!", 22/7 is also a repeating decimal.
Pi is also known as Archimedes' constant, Ludolphine, and Ludolph's Number.
Ludolph van Ceulen (Germany) spent a great deal of time calculating digits of pi. The number is engraved on his tombstone. If I were to get buried, I would have all the digits I memorized engraved on it, but I want to get cremated instead. [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 10:16, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:It is not true that Pi is exactly 3. What is your suggestion to improve the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:31, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

::I haven't said anything about my beliefs, let's just leave my life out of this, eh? And, with you saying that pi=3, are you suggesting CP completely rewrites this article? [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 10:39, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::If you are not claiming that pi = 3, then that makes two of us. :-)
:::I've made a few updates to the article, primarily about scriptural references and historical estimates. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:41, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

==Is the Bible wrong about pi?==

In the ancient world, measurements were not given as exact as they are today, and that was generally considered acceptable.
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/piwrong.html [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Who said it was wrong? Sloppy ancients aren't nessecarily wrong ancients. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:25, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::So, can I reinsert the Bibical perspective? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:15, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::It's not relevant simply to note that the Bible happens to approximate it in passing. However, many use it as an argument to show that the Bible is errant, and that's what I surmise may have been the purpose for its inclusion [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:35, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Wait. The Bible's interpretation of Pi is not relevant to Pi? What? Look, friend, the Bible is always relevant. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:14, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::You admit you're an atheist on your user page. Why are you so interested in inserting this in there? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:15, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::I admit I'm an atheist-- You say it like it's a bad thing. I'm not trying to stat a fight, Dan, I just figure that, as a wiki with a majority of users that are Christian, it would be good to include the Biblical perspective on matters where it has spoken, as is done in [[shrimp]]. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:18, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:I didn't realize that was still in [[shrimp]]. Anyways, as the article posted above explains, the numbers were not meant to be exact, and the circumference and diameter may have been given as approximate estimates, but pi wasn't a concept that most people knew about or cared about. The Bible wasn't meaning to comment on pi at that point, only at the relevant calculations. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:24, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::That's great, Dan. You seem pretty hostile to the Bible. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:16, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't see how Dan seems to be "pretty hostile to the Bible". Your insertion was simply wrong, as the Bible is not trying to give a value for pi at all. Besides, the Bible reference which is frequently quoted by bibliosceptics as supposedly representing pi is already in the article, and even that warrants being removed (in that form) in my opinion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Oh... So anything a skeptic quotes must be purged, then? What is the purpose of the verse if not to show the value of pi? Furthermore, how do you know what the Bible is and is not trying to say, Philip? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:48, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Also, bibliosceptics is A: Spelled wrong and B: a word which would translate as "Skeptical of books." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:49, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, bugger. It seems I didn't notice that the verse was already quoted in the History section. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:51, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::: I didn't say that anything a sceptic quotes should be purged.
::: What's the purpose if not to show the value of pi? To ''describe the object's size'', genius!
::: What is incorrect about the spelling of "bibliosceptics"? Yes, the word ''could'' mean "sceptical of books", but as "Bible" means "book", it's appropriate to use it to mean "sceptical of the Bible".
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:03, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::"Besides, the Bible reference which is frequently quoted by bibliosceptics as supposedly representing pi is already in the article, and even that warrants being removed (in that form) in my opinion." That's exactly what you said, Philip!
::::Then why not describe it ''correctly''?
::::Skeptics. With a K. Also: Yes. I know it means book. Your use of faux Latin does not make you smarter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: That quote of mine does not indicate that ''anything'' a sceptic quotes should be purged, and neither does it say that that bit should be removed ''because it's something a sceptic quotes''.
::::: Aussies traditionally spell "sceptic" with a "c", hence my use of "bibliosceptic" rather than "biblioskeptic".
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

A fourth consecutive edit, because a thought occurs. How can we be sure that man's measurements are correct in this case but the Bible is not? Furthermore, if the Bible is wrong here, how can we logically accept that everything else is exact-- IE, the age of the Earth? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:56, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
: What reason is there to think that the Bible's measurements are incorrect? The logic of your question is valid, but the premise (that the Bible is incorrect) is not. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:05, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::Well, if it's ten cubits from one side to the other, it should be 31 all around, if we're rounding. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: What if it was actually 9.7 cubits (rounded to 10) from one side to the other? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Then the measurement given is, quite simply, wrong. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:44, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: Huh? Okay, I'll have to spell it out for you. If (and this is not the only possible explanation) the ''actual'' diameter was 9.7 cubits, then the ''actual'' radius would be 30.47 cubits. If ''both'' of those figures are rounded to the nearest cubit, then the diameter would be listed as 10 cubits and the circumference would be listed as 30 cubits. And guess what! That's what the Bible lists them as! So if this is correct (and it doesn't have to be exactly that: it could be 9.6 cubits for example), then the Bible is perfectly accurate! ("Accurate" is a different thing to "precise", as Ed mentions below.) If you still aren't convinced, have a look at the links in the External Links section of the article, particularly the Math Forum one. In fact, don't reply here unless you first read the three links. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:03, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::Yes. Rounding. I get it. It's impercise. If I say Ed is six feet tall, I'm wrong because he's not. If I say he's ''about'' six feet tall, I'm right, because he's just over six feet tall. Is that so hard to understand, Philip? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:06, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Alright. Scanned through the links. I get it-- God couldn't be arsed to tell the lowly Earthers a more prescise number. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:51, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: You've earned yourself another block for that arrogant response.
::::::::: If Ed is 6 feet, 3.02 inches tall, would you refer to him as "about 6'3" tall"? The articles said nothing about God not telling us a more precise number. The first link points out that their measurements would not be that precise to start with. In this case, they are not rounding, but simply measuring with a course measuring device. The second reference pointed out that it was common to round numbers in those times. Insisting on using the word "about" is really a case of you expecting people from 3000 years ago to follow your conventions. It doesn't mean that they got anything wrong. The third reference pointed out the following:
:::::::::* "''...in the absence of an explicit indication of precision, the absence of a tenths digit implies that the figure is accurate to the nearest 1 cubit...''". So the measurements were accurate to within the implied level of precision!
:::::::::* "''Every measurement we ever make is an approximation.''". So do you preface ''every'' measurement with "about"? (That's the point of my question above about Ed being 6'3.02" tall.) Absence of the word "about" does ''not'' mean that the measurement is "wrong".
::::::::: You acknowledged none of those points in your response, instead making a silly comment about God. It's clear that you simply want to argue a point that has been thoroughly refuted, and you've stopped doing so civilly. Hence your block. Learn from it.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:55, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::You're not wrong to call me six feet tall; I don't mind losing 3 inches in the interest of smooth prose. Just don't call me [[Metric to English conversions|two meters]] tall! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:50, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::That's what the "about" is for-- it indicates impercision. Most useful article ever, by the way. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:59, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I took a few science courses in high school and college. You might be interested to learn about the difference between "[[accuracy]]" and "[[precision]]". (I probably should compare and contrast the two ideas in a proposed new article: [[accuracy and precision]].)

:::Here's how it's relevant to [[Pi]]. When the Bible says ten cubits, that is an approximation. Scientists would say the measurement is being given to "[[one significant figure]]". It really could be anything between 9 and 11 cubits, and it still wouldn't be wrong, because it's only an approximation, like saying that Ed Poor is six feet tall (I'm 6'3" in bare feet).

:::The ratio between the diameter of a wheel and its circumference is, roughly, three. And if you drew a circle on the ground, with a diameter of 10 cubits, you would pace off 30 cubits when you walked around the circle. [[Pacing]] is not a very precise measurement, but it's good enough for some cases. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:01, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: "''It really could be anything between 9 and 11 cubits...''": 9.5 and 10.5 actually. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:06, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Anyway, you're being too patient with a time-waster. Liberals l-o-v-e to change the subject, with distractions like the supposedly preferable spelling of sceptic. I'm sceptical of this fella's motives, and I've left a note at his talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:13, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: I would actually like him to answer my last question above, though. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::Ed: You'll get a response in the appropriate place momentarily, don't worry.
:::::Philip J. Rayment: So you have wished it, so it shall be. Response is above. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:44, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

The Bible does not provide a value for pi, so the following statement is misleading at best:

:The [[Qur'an]] also defines Pi as 3.(al-Sûra ''aleph bei'').

Use of the word "also" implies that the Bible has provided a definition. The story about the ten cubits does not define pi. It merely gives a diameter and a radius of something presumed to be circular. (A circumference of thirty is consistent with a diameter of ten, with a precision of one [[significant digit]].)

In any case, I'd like to see the exact words of an English translation of any Koran passage related to circle math before approving any claim as damaging as "defines Pi as 3." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:53, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:Over the years, I've found this to be one of the sillier arguments against the Bible. I've found that those who push it don't believe it, but only do so to try to force in a 'gotcha' that they themselves know isn't the case, but nevertheless they draw enjoyment from trying to act like it is anyway. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:48, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

==I do not like the "Pi in the Bible" section...==
...for many reasons. First, the title is misleading, as the text points out. There is no pi in the Bible (only unleaven bread--just kidding!), nor does the Bible make any attempt to define pi or ''e'' or or any other mathematical or physical constant. Second, I think the subject is out of place in an article about mathematics. Perhaps it should be a minor section in an apologetics-related article. Or be omitted entirely, as it is not really a serious criticism, but more a "baby apologetics" thing that appeals to unsophisticated Bible skeptics.

Thirdly, while I appreciate that someone has done the work of gathering the arguments in one place, the wording could be better. It says "Critics claim this, but they are making the following assumptions". Better to say "Critics say this but they are wrong for these reasons." You do not know what someone else's assumptions are.

Fourthly, a minor point. If you opt to keep this section, you might point out that when critics complain that the Bible rounds the circumference to a multiple of ten instead of something more precise (say, 31.4 cubits), they are being inconsistent, because that number is also imprecise. Because pi is irrational, there is no number that could be contained (in a finite Bible) that could give the measurement exactly. What the baby skeptics are doing here is setting an impossible condition for precision, then saying that if the Bible is imprecise it is not inerrant (another big leap in logic), and hoping that no one will notice the flaws in their reasoning.

{{unsigned|Ga ohoyt}}

:I wasn't happy with the title either (and I wrote it!), but I wasn't sure what else to have. The next best think I could think of was to put pi in quote marks: "Pi" in the Bible.
: I don't think the article is particularly out of place. The article is about pi specifically (not just "mathematics"), and this section is about pi, or at least about a claim made about pi. It is not a serious criticism in the sense of having even a shred of validity, but it is something that is ''often'' claimed by bible critics. The Skeptics Annotated Bible mentions it, for example.
: As for the mention of assumptions, no, you don't need to know what assumptions they are consciously making; there are certain assumptions ''inherent'' in the argument, which is all that the comment is saying. That is, they ''must be'' making these assumptions, even if subconsciously. That's not to say that the wording can't be altered to something better, but I do think it's acceptable as it is.
: There were a couple of other problems with the claim that I thought of mentioning, but the section was large enough already and the others were in a sense variations on the ones already mentioned, so I thought that was enough. Yes, they often claim that the value is "incorrect", but then are unable to give the "correct" value themselves (because it has an infinite number of digits). And that would be a good thing to point out if the Bible was actually claiming to give a value for pi, but as it's not, it seemed a little bit unnecessary.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:48, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Better now? [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 20:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: I'm not sure (but I don't think it's worse). I don't think it's appropriate to have a question for a heading, and neither do I think it's appropriate for the heading to be part of the flow of the text, as is now the case, because the first sentence of the section doesn't make sense without the heading. A heading should give an idea of what the section is about, not be part of the section, if you're following me. Also, the claim is not (normally) explicitly made that the Bible defines pi, as indicated by the heading. Rather, that claim is ''implicit'' in the ''explicit'' claim that the Bible has an incorrect value for pi. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:19, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

I think the section is necessary because we ''do'' periodically hear this canard about Pi, and the encyclopedia should give the reader the information he needs to respond to it. However, I think the article's response is insufficiently dismissive.

I would simply say that the numbers in the Biblical passage ''are'' correct, to their given precision. Hence there is no controversy. Likewise, if an encyclopedia gives the radius and circumference of the Earth to the nearest thousand feet, the encyclopedia is not "wrong about Pi," and nobody would seriously say it was. It seems that only in the case of the Bible are critics so impassioned as to buy such a dopey argument.

Also, I think it is too weak to say it was "common at the time to round numbers." It is common ''all the time'' to give measurements like this, and to do so without any conscious or explicit rounding. The way these bullet points are worded, they give the impression that the values D=10 and C=30 need to be explained by some hypothetical act: maybe someone rounded a measurement, maybe they measured different parts of the rim, etc. But D=10 and C=30 does not need any of these explanations because, as I said, they are correct to their given precision, and there is no discrepancy that needs to be explained. I'd just remove them, lest they contribute to the sense of false controversy.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

== Question on the Bible reference ==

Were decimals and fractions even in use in the Holy Land at the time 1 Kings was written? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:26, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
: Decimals, no, I think. Fractions, yes, to some extent, I think. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:39, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

== Pi contains pi ==
''The infinite length of ostensibly random decimal points in means that it contains the equivalent of every book ever written, every birthday, and every other number.''

That is quite a misleading statement: Pi (most probably) contains any '''finite''' sequence of numbers, therefore any book or birthday date can be "found", e.g., encoded as ascii.

But saying that pi contains "every other number" implies that it contains every number like pi, i.e., every real number. That is obviously wrong. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 08:42, July 11, 2021 (EDT)
:"Obviously wrong"??? Here is my proof by induction:
::1. pi contains pi as one significant digit in a finite representation ("3": 3.14159265'''3'''....)
::2. assume pi contains pi as ''n'' significant digits in a finite representation of pi. Pi must also contain pi as ''n+1'' significant digits as the number of digits of pi is stretched to [[infinity]].
:Q.E.D.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 13:06, July 29, 2021 (EDT)

::Could you explain what you mean by "pi contains pi" exactly? Usually, when looking for birthdays, you would look for a consecutive string of six numbers. And mathematicians are certain that you could find the text of "Hamlet" if you take π mod 26 as a unbroken string. That seems to be different from your idea to find pi... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 15:25, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
:::Not different at all. "Pi contains pi" means what it says: the full pi within pi. [[Infinity denial]] appears to be an obstacle here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:38, July 29, 2021 (EDT)

:::For clarification: π containing π means that there is a consecutive sequence of digits in π (not starting from the first one) which equals π? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:07, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
::::Right, as I proved above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:13, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
:::::Sorry for being a little bit thick (or nitpicking) - perhaps I have difficulties because English isn't my first language... OTOH: mathematics is universal!
:::::You are saying that there is a infinite and unbroken sequence of digits in the representation of π (not starting with the first significant digit) equal to π ?
:::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:34, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
::::::Yes. Repeatedly asking for clarification of something that is clear could be the result of denial, in this case [[infinity denial]]. I don't think the disconnect has anything to do with communication in [[English]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:59, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
:::::As an uninformed, disinterested bystander, I don't see how infinity can be defined by any limited, confined, or known values. Infinity may contain xn number of dimensions, for all we know. How is this so hard to comprehend for people who theorize about life on other planets? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 23:09, July 29, 2021 (EDT)

Doing math in a natural language is sometimes difficult. Luckily, we can get rid of ambiguities by trying to formalize statements.I hope we can agree on the following:<blockquote>If x0.x1x2x3x4x5...... is the digital expansion of π, then a "infinite and unbroken sequence of digits in the representation of π (not starting with the first significant digit) equal to π" is given by xnxn+1xn+2xn+3xn+4xn+5......, with xn=3, xn+1=1, xn+2= 4, xn+3=1, and so on and n being a natural number</blockquote>
Thank you for your patience! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 01:38, July 30, 2021 (EDT)
:Yes, that's right. The aspect of [[infinity]] illustrated by the observation that [[pi]] contains pi is similar to several of the [[miracle]]s and [[parable]]s in the [[New Testament]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 13:10, July 30, 2021 (EDT)

From your "induction proof", I got the impression that you were looking for increasingly long strings resembling the leading digits of π - I looked up the first few for you:
{|
|'''x9'''x10||=||'''3'''5
|-
|'''x137x138'''x139||=||'''31'''7
|-
|'''x2120x2121x2122'''x2123||=||'''314'''2
|-
|'''x3496x3497x3498x3499'''x3450||=||'''3141'''2
|-
|'''x88008x88009x88010x88011x88012'''x88013||=||'''31415'''1
|-
|'''x146451x146452x146453x146454x146455x146456x146457'''x146458||=||'''314159'''7
|-
|'''x25198140x25198141x25198142x25198143x25198144x25198145x25198146x251981407'''x25198148||=||'''3141592'''1
|}

But this does not imply that the whole digital representation of π can be found as a consecutive string in π again. In fact, that is impossible.

Yours statement is like saying that as 1, 11, 111, 1111, 11.111, 111.111 and so on are natural numbers, an infinite string of 1s is a natural number, too: And I hope we can agree that this is a false statement.
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:41, July 30, 2021 (EDT)
:Your superb examples demonstrate that if true for "n" significant digits, then one can be found later having "n+1" significant digits. This reinforces the proof by induction. I don't see any support for your assertion "that is impossible." I also don't see any connection to your hypothesis about whether an infinite string of 1s is a "natural number," which is simply a matter of definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 21:30, July 30, 2021 (EDT)

::*''Your superb examples demonstrate that if true for "n" significant digits, then one can be found later having "n+1" significant digits.'' Thanks! But a few examples make no proof.
::*''This reinforces the proof by induction.'' No. It does not. As no one has proofed that π is a [[normal number]], your "proof by induction" is on shaky grounds.
::*''I don't see any support for your assertion "that is impossible."'' I put it at [[Talk:Conservapedia insights#Proof that π does not contain π:]] - it is somewhat of an overkill:
{|
|style="background-color:pink"|
#π is given as a digital expansion x0.x1x2x3x4x5...
#"finding π in π" means that there is an index n such that π starts all over again at xn
#If π starts again at n, then x0 = xn = 3, x1 = xn+1 = 1, x2 = xn+2 = 4, x3 = xn+3 = 1 and so on. "And so on" means that xk = xk+n for each natural number k, i.e.,. k ∈ N0.
#What happens if k equals n? What is the value of xn + n? According to the step above, xn + n =xn. But xn=x0=3 ! So, xn + n = xn=x0=3
#That's true for all multiples of n: if w ∈ N0, then xw n = x(w-1) n = .... = x2 n = xn = x0 = 3.
#What about xw n +k ( 0 ≤ k < n )? Again, xw n +k = x(w-1) n +k = x(w-2) n +k = x2 n +k = xn +k = xk
#So, for every natural number w and every number k with 0 ≤ k < n we have: xw n +k = xk. That makes π periodic, the length of the period is n.
#Therefore, π can be written as x0x1x2x3...xn-1 / (10n-1 -1) . But this is a rational number, and we know that π is irrational.
#We have a classical contradiction: As our result is wrong, our assumption that π is contained in π has to be wrong.
|}
::*''I also don't see any connection to your hypothesis about whether an infinite string of 1s is a "natural number," which is simply a matter of definition.'' In general, infinity is a difficult concept. But the simplest form of infinity is being "countably infinite". You should make yourself familiar with this concept. Then you would recognize that there is a difference between the statements:
::::#''a sequence contains a countably infinite number of finite sub-sequences with a certain property'' and
::::#''a sequence contains a countably infinite sub-sequence with a certain property''
:::The first statement does not imply the second one. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:44, July 31, 2021 (EDT)
::::Your proposed proof has the fallacy of assuming a termination on an infinite sequence (and thus periodicity). There is no such termination.
::::Your criticism of my proof by induction is also flawed. Do you really think that your examples for n and n+1 will stop existing in the infinite sequence of digits for [[pi]], at some large n? Your position essentially denies the extent of [[infinity]].
::::[[Infinity]] has no such limit. Embrace its vastness and make it work for you. It can be enormously beneficial at a personal level for someone's outlook, and not something to be resisted through [[infinity denial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:25, July 31, 2021 (EDT)

*"''Your proposed proof has the fallacy of assuming a termination on an infinite sequence (and thus periodicity). There is no such termination.''" That sounds impressive. The proof does not assume "a termination on an infinite sequence" - whatever you mean by this.
*"''Your criticism of my proof by induction is also flawed.''" I have been reluctant to address what you call your "proof by induction" - there is no way to do this charitably. But you forced my hand:

===Andrew Schlafly's "Proof by Induction"===
{|
|style="background-color:pink"|π contains π as one significant digit in a finite representation ("3": 3.14159265'''3'''....)
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|That's your '''base case''': as π does not equal 3, the sentence "π contains π as one significant digit" is wrong on face value. But, I assume you wanted to say something like "π contains a approximation of π of length 1." So, well done, I'll give you that. Now for the two parts of the '''induction step''':
|-
|style="background-color:pink"|assume π contains π as ''n'' significant digits in a finite representation of π
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|again, your '''induction hypothesis''' is okay: I'd use the phrase "approximation of π of length ''n''", but let's not quibble.
|-
|style="background-color:pink"|π must also contain π as ''n+1'' significant digits as the number of digits of π is stretched to [[infinity]]
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|'''''What? Why should this be true?''''' Mathematicians have not proofed yet that π is a [[normal number]]! You can easily construct a irrational number which contains an approximation of π of length 1010,000, but no approximation of length 1010,000 + 1 . Perhaps God constructed π this way - just to teach mathematicians a little humility. No one knows yet.
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|But even if your conclusion was true, you would have proofed only that π contains approximations of every imaginable '''''finite''''' length - not of '''''infinite length'''''. That is the same principle which allows you to count to every number, but never reach infinity.
|-
|style="background-color:pink"|Q.E.D.
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|Yeah, that's funny.
|}

Andy, I know that you will not be convinced by my arguments (even if you have read them) - you never are. But while getting something wrong in classical Greek makes you look uneducated to a very small minority of readers, being wrong when it comes to the concept of countable infinity makes you look stupid in the eyes of quite a bigger audience.

But therein lies a chance: I assume that you have no one in your circle of friends with whom you could discuss Koine, but I hope that there are mathematically educated persons whom you know: perhaps a high-school teacher, a mathematician (even a student will do) or a physicist, or someone else with comparable background? Ask them: get their help.

Seriously, yours [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:06, August 1, 2021 (EDT)
:Your [[infinity denial]] is illogical. I urge you to welcome and embrace [[infinity]] (yes, by implication [[eternity]]), and use it for your own benefit. I want you to realize all the happiness and glory it provides.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:52, August 2, 2021 (EDT)
::Are you still talking about mathematics? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:00, August 2, 2021 (EDT)

"assume pi contains pi as n significant digits in a finite representation of pi. Pi must also contain pi as n+1 significant digits" - so pi (assuming it's a normal number, as Augusto said) contains any truncated version of pi of any finite length (no matter how many zillions of digits). An infinite number of each truncation. It would also imply that any finite string of digits of pi would be replicated an infinite number of times elsewhere in the string of digits.

"as the number of digits of pi is stretched to infinity." Is it necessary that the pi within pi start at a digit infinitely far from the first digit? That would get around the periodicity issue.

The mathstack discussion:
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1608060/does-pi-contain-itself

I kind of like the idea of two points on a line being infinitely far from each other, with a third halfway in between, but I don't think that's part of the current standard set of axioms.

We're ignoring the decimal point, right? There's only one of those. Anyway, this is a pretty interesting discussion. [[User:AlChesapeake|AlChesapeake]]

===Linking to this section from the article===
Andy, do you really think that it is a good idea to link to the above section '''on a talk-page''' from the main article on [[pi|π]]? And please, read the discussion! (ups, that was the second sentence of this paragraph - you probably already started skipping...) --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 05:23, August 3, 2021 (EDT)

Talk:Pi

2021-09-03T00:09:01Z

AlChesapeake: question on pi within pi

Answering the question posed in the article, "As of 2002, the record is held by Yasumasa Kanada of Tokyo University at 1,241,100,000,000 digits. That result was never printed out: can you figure out why not?"

An ordinary printed page can hold about 5,000 digits.

To print 1,241,100,000,000 digits would require 248,220,000 pages, or 496,440 reams of paper. A ream of paper is the size of a large book. It would take a building the size of a city library to hold the printed output. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 23:08, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Counting the letters in the phrase "Now I wish I had a drink—alcoholic, of course" '''Does not help because it gives a wrong answer.''' it gives 3(.)141315926, it should be 3.1415926...
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:54, 15 January 2007 (EST)

*Yikes! I'm going to have to turn in my geek badge. It should be "How I want a drink--alcoholic of course." I was mixing it with "How I wish I could recollect pi easily today." Sorry. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:16, 16 January 2007 (EST)

So I'm assuming by the change back to the old version, my revision was no good. An explanation why would be nice, though. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 21:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Groan==

What was I thinking here? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pi&curid=4960&diff=71562&oldid=71280&rcid=74105]

113 '''divided into''' 355 like this:

3.14156.....
---------
113|355.00000

I had 1/pi by mistake - not even an approximation, more like an abomination. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:44, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== I like Pi ==

Pi R Squared? No they're not, Pie are round. Brownies are square. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:LOL. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:08, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

==22/7==
Besides the fact that "Pi is exactly 3!", 22/7 is also a repeating decimal.
Pi is also known as Archimedes' constant, Ludolphine, and Ludolph's Number.
Ludolph van Ceulen (Germany) spent a great deal of time calculating digits of pi. The number is engraved on his tombstone. If I were to get buried, I would have all the digits I memorized engraved on it, but I want to get cremated instead. [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 10:16, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:It is not true that Pi is exactly 3. What is your suggestion to improve the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:31, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

::I haven't said anything about my beliefs, let's just leave my life out of this, eh? And, with you saying that pi=3, are you suggesting CP completely rewrites this article? [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 10:39, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::If you are not claiming that pi = 3, then that makes two of us. :-)
:::I've made a few updates to the article, primarily about scriptural references and historical estimates. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:41, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

==Is the Bible wrong about pi?==

In the ancient world, measurements were not given as exact as they are today, and that was generally considered acceptable.
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/piwrong.html [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Who said it was wrong? Sloppy ancients aren't nessecarily wrong ancients. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:25, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::So, can I reinsert the Bibical perspective? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:15, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::It's not relevant simply to note that the Bible happens to approximate it in passing. However, many use it as an argument to show that the Bible is errant, and that's what I surmise may have been the purpose for its inclusion [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:35, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Wait. The Bible's interpretation of Pi is not relevant to Pi? What? Look, friend, the Bible is always relevant. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:14, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::You admit you're an atheist on your user page. Why are you so interested in inserting this in there? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:15, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::I admit I'm an atheist-- You say it like it's a bad thing. I'm not trying to stat a fight, Dan, I just figure that, as a wiki with a majority of users that are Christian, it would be good to include the Biblical perspective on matters where it has spoken, as is done in [[shrimp]]. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:18, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:I didn't realize that was still in [[shrimp]]. Anyways, as the article posted above explains, the numbers were not meant to be exact, and the circumference and diameter may have been given as approximate estimates, but pi wasn't a concept that most people knew about or cared about. The Bible wasn't meaning to comment on pi at that point, only at the relevant calculations. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:24, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::That's great, Dan. You seem pretty hostile to the Bible. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:16, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't see how Dan seems to be "pretty hostile to the Bible". Your insertion was simply wrong, as the Bible is not trying to give a value for pi at all. Besides, the Bible reference which is frequently quoted by bibliosceptics as supposedly representing pi is already in the article, and even that warrants being removed (in that form) in my opinion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Oh... So anything a skeptic quotes must be purged, then? What is the purpose of the verse if not to show the value of pi? Furthermore, how do you know what the Bible is and is not trying to say, Philip? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:48, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Also, bibliosceptics is A: Spelled wrong and B: a word which would translate as "Skeptical of books." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:49, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, bugger. It seems I didn't notice that the verse was already quoted in the History section. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:51, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::: I didn't say that anything a sceptic quotes should be purged.
::: What's the purpose if not to show the value of pi? To ''describe the object's size'', genius!
::: What is incorrect about the spelling of "bibliosceptics"? Yes, the word ''could'' mean "sceptical of books", but as "Bible" means "book", it's appropriate to use it to mean "sceptical of the Bible".
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:03, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::"Besides, the Bible reference which is frequently quoted by bibliosceptics as supposedly representing pi is already in the article, and even that warrants being removed (in that form) in my opinion." That's exactly what you said, Philip!
::::Then why not describe it ''correctly''?
::::Skeptics. With a K. Also: Yes. I know it means book. Your use of faux Latin does not make you smarter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: That quote of mine does not indicate that ''anything'' a sceptic quotes should be purged, and neither does it say that that bit should be removed ''because it's something a sceptic quotes''.
::::: Aussies traditionally spell "sceptic" with a "c", hence my use of "bibliosceptic" rather than "biblioskeptic".
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

A fourth consecutive edit, because a thought occurs. How can we be sure that man's measurements are correct in this case but the Bible is not? Furthermore, if the Bible is wrong here, how can we logically accept that everything else is exact-- IE, the age of the Earth? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:56, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
: What reason is there to think that the Bible's measurements are incorrect? The logic of your question is valid, but the premise (that the Bible is incorrect) is not. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:05, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::Well, if it's ten cubits from one side to the other, it should be 31 all around, if we're rounding. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: What if it was actually 9.7 cubits (rounded to 10) from one side to the other? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Then the measurement given is, quite simply, wrong. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:44, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: Huh? Okay, I'll have to spell it out for you. If (and this is not the only possible explanation) the ''actual'' diameter was 9.7 cubits, then the ''actual'' radius would be 30.47 cubits. If ''both'' of those figures are rounded to the nearest cubit, then the diameter would be listed as 10 cubits and the circumference would be listed as 30 cubits. And guess what! That's what the Bible lists them as! So if this is correct (and it doesn't have to be exactly that: it could be 9.6 cubits for example), then the Bible is perfectly accurate! ("Accurate" is a different thing to "precise", as Ed mentions below.) If you still aren't convinced, have a look at the links in the External Links section of the article, particularly the Math Forum one. In fact, don't reply here unless you first read the three links. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:03, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::Yes. Rounding. I get it. It's impercise. If I say Ed is six feet tall, I'm wrong because he's not. If I say he's ''about'' six feet tall, I'm right, because he's just over six feet tall. Is that so hard to understand, Philip? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:06, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Alright. Scanned through the links. I get it-- God couldn't be arsed to tell the lowly Earthers a more prescise number. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:51, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: You've earned yourself another block for that arrogant response.
::::::::: If Ed is 6 feet, 3.02 inches tall, would you refer to him as "about 6'3" tall"? The articles said nothing about God not telling us a more precise number. The first link points out that their measurements would not be that precise to start with. In this case, they are not rounding, but simply measuring with a course measuring device. The second reference pointed out that it was common to round numbers in those times. Insisting on using the word "about" is really a case of you expecting people from 3000 years ago to follow your conventions. It doesn't mean that they got anything wrong. The third reference pointed out the following:
:::::::::* "''...in the absence of an explicit indication of precision, the absence of a tenths digit implies that the figure is accurate to the nearest 1 cubit...''". So the measurements were accurate to within the implied level of precision!
:::::::::* "''Every measurement we ever make is an approximation.''". So do you preface ''every'' measurement with "about"? (That's the point of my question above about Ed being 6'3.02" tall.) Absence of the word "about" does ''not'' mean that the measurement is "wrong".
::::::::: You acknowledged none of those points in your response, instead making a silly comment about God. It's clear that you simply want to argue a point that has been thoroughly refuted, and you've stopped doing so civilly. Hence your block. Learn from it.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:55, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::You're not wrong to call me six feet tall; I don't mind losing 3 inches in the interest of smooth prose. Just don't call me [[Metric to English conversions|two meters]] tall! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:50, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::That's what the "about" is for-- it indicates impercision. Most useful article ever, by the way. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:59, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I took a few science courses in high school and college. You might be interested to learn about the difference between "[[accuracy]]" and "[[precision]]". (I probably should compare and contrast the two ideas in a proposed new article: [[accuracy and precision]].)

:::Here's how it's relevant to [[Pi]]. When the Bible says ten cubits, that is an approximation. Scientists would say the measurement is being given to "[[one significant figure]]". It really could be anything between 9 and 11 cubits, and it still wouldn't be wrong, because it's only an approximation, like saying that Ed Poor is six feet tall (I'm 6'3" in bare feet).

:::The ratio between the diameter of a wheel and its circumference is, roughly, three. And if you drew a circle on the ground, with a diameter of 10 cubits, you would pace off 30 cubits when you walked around the circle. [[Pacing]] is not a very precise measurement, but it's good enough for some cases. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:01, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: "''It really could be anything between 9 and 11 cubits...''": 9.5 and 10.5 actually. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:06, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Anyway, you're being too patient with a time-waster. Liberals l-o-v-e to change the subject, with distractions like the supposedly preferable spelling of sceptic. I'm sceptical of this fella's motives, and I've left a note at his talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:13, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: I would actually like him to answer my last question above, though. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::Ed: You'll get a response in the appropriate place momentarily, don't worry.
:::::Philip J. Rayment: So you have wished it, so it shall be. Response is above. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:44, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

The Bible does not provide a value for pi, so the following statement is misleading at best:

:The [[Qur'an]] also defines Pi as 3.(al-Sûra ''aleph bei'').

Use of the word "also" implies that the Bible has provided a definition. The story about the ten cubits does not define pi. It merely gives a diameter and a radius of something presumed to be circular. (A circumference of thirty is consistent with a diameter of ten, with a precision of one [[significant digit]].)

In any case, I'd like to see the exact words of an English translation of any Koran passage related to circle math before approving any claim as damaging as "defines Pi as 3." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:53, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:Over the years, I've found this to be one of the sillier arguments against the Bible. I've found that those who push it don't believe it, but only do so to try to force in a 'gotcha' that they themselves know isn't the case, but nevertheless they draw enjoyment from trying to act like it is anyway. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:48, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

==I do not like the "Pi in the Bible" section...==
...for many reasons. First, the title is misleading, as the text points out. There is no pi in the Bible (only unleaven bread--just kidding!), nor does the Bible make any attempt to define pi or ''e'' or or any other mathematical or physical constant. Second, I think the subject is out of place in an article about mathematics. Perhaps it should be a minor section in an apologetics-related article. Or be omitted entirely, as it is not really a serious criticism, but more a "baby apologetics" thing that appeals to unsophisticated Bible skeptics.

Thirdly, while I appreciate that someone has done the work of gathering the arguments in one place, the wording could be better. It says "Critics claim this, but they are making the following assumptions". Better to say "Critics say this but they are wrong for these reasons." You do not know what someone else's assumptions are.

Fourthly, a minor point. If you opt to keep this section, you might point out that when critics complain that the Bible rounds the circumference to a multiple of ten instead of something more precise (say, 31.4 cubits), they are being inconsistent, because that number is also imprecise. Because pi is irrational, there is no number that could be contained (in a finite Bible) that could give the measurement exactly. What the baby skeptics are doing here is setting an impossible condition for precision, then saying that if the Bible is imprecise it is not inerrant (another big leap in logic), and hoping that no one will notice the flaws in their reasoning.

{{unsigned|Ga ohoyt}}

:I wasn't happy with the title either (and I wrote it!), but I wasn't sure what else to have. The next best think I could think of was to put pi in quote marks: "Pi" in the Bible.
: I don't think the article is particularly out of place. The article is about pi specifically (not just "mathematics"), and this section is about pi, or at least about a claim made about pi. It is not a serious criticism in the sense of having even a shred of validity, but it is something that is ''often'' claimed by bible critics. The Skeptics Annotated Bible mentions it, for example.
: As for the mention of assumptions, no, you don't need to know what assumptions they are consciously making; there are certain assumptions ''inherent'' in the argument, which is all that the comment is saying. That is, they ''must be'' making these assumptions, even if subconsciously. That's not to say that the wording can't be altered to something better, but I do think it's acceptable as it is.
: There were a couple of other problems with the claim that I thought of mentioning, but the section was large enough already and the others were in a sense variations on the ones already mentioned, so I thought that was enough. Yes, they often claim that the value is "incorrect", but then are unable to give the "correct" value themselves (because it has an infinite number of digits). And that would be a good thing to point out if the Bible was actually claiming to give a value for pi, but as it's not, it seemed a little bit unnecessary.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:48, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Better now? [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 20:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: I'm not sure (but I don't think it's worse). I don't think it's appropriate to have a question for a heading, and neither do I think it's appropriate for the heading to be part of the flow of the text, as is now the case, because the first sentence of the section doesn't make sense without the heading. A heading should give an idea of what the section is about, not be part of the section, if you're following me. Also, the claim is not (normally) explicitly made that the Bible defines pi, as indicated by the heading. Rather, that claim is ''implicit'' in the ''explicit'' claim that the Bible has an incorrect value for pi. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:19, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

I think the section is necessary because we ''do'' periodically hear this canard about Pi, and the encyclopedia should give the reader the information he needs to respond to it. However, I think the article's response is insufficiently dismissive.

I would simply say that the numbers in the Biblical passage ''are'' correct, to their given precision. Hence there is no controversy. Likewise, if an encyclopedia gives the radius and circumference of the Earth to the nearest thousand feet, the encyclopedia is not "wrong about Pi," and nobody would seriously say it was. It seems that only in the case of the Bible are critics so impassioned as to buy such a dopey argument.

Also, I think it is too weak to say it was "common at the time to round numbers." It is common ''all the time'' to give measurements like this, and to do so without any conscious or explicit rounding. The way these bullet points are worded, they give the impression that the values D=10 and C=30 need to be explained by some hypothetical act: maybe someone rounded a measurement, maybe they measured different parts of the rim, etc. But D=10 and C=30 does not need any of these explanations because, as I said, they are correct to their given precision, and there is no discrepancy that needs to be explained. I'd just remove them, lest they contribute to the sense of false controversy.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

== Question on the Bible reference ==

Were decimals and fractions even in use in the Holy Land at the time 1 Kings was written? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:26, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
: Decimals, no, I think. Fractions, yes, to some extent, I think. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:39, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

== Pi contains pi ==
''The infinite length of ostensibly random decimal points in means that it contains the equivalent of every book ever written, every birthday, and every other number.''

That is quite a misleading statement: Pi (most probably) contains any '''finite''' sequence of numbers, therefore any book or birthday date can be "found", e.g., encoded as ascii.

But saying that pi contains "every other number" implies that it contains every number like pi, i.e., every real number. That is obviously wrong. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 08:42, July 11, 2021 (EDT)
:"Obviously wrong"??? Here is my proof by induction:
::1. pi contains pi as one significant digit in a finite representation ("3": 3.14159265'''3'''....)
::2. assume pi contains pi as ''n'' significant digits in a finite representation of pi. Pi must also contain pi as ''n+1'' significant digits as the number of digits of pi is stretched to [[infinity]].
:Q.E.D.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 13:06, July 29, 2021 (EDT)

::Could you explain what you mean by "pi contains pi" exactly? Usually, when looking for birthdays, you would look for a consecutive string of six numbers. And mathematicians are certain that you could find the text of "Hamlet" if you take π mod 26 as a unbroken string. That seems to be different from your idea to find pi... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 15:25, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
:::Not different at all. "Pi contains pi" means what it says: the full pi within pi. [[Infinity denial]] appears to be an obstacle here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:38, July 29, 2021 (EDT)

:::For clarification: π containing π means that there is a consecutive sequence of digits in π (not starting from the first one) which equals π? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:07, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
::::Right, as I proved above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:13, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
:::::Sorry for being a little bit thick (or nitpicking) - perhaps I have difficulties because English isn't my first language... OTOH: mathematics is universal!
:::::You are saying that there is a infinite and unbroken sequence of digits in the representation of π (not starting with the first significant digit) equal to π ?
:::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:34, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
::::::Yes. Repeatedly asking for clarification of something that is clear could be the result of denial, in this case [[infinity denial]]. I don't think the disconnect has anything to do with communication in [[English]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:59, July 29, 2021 (EDT)
:::::As an uninformed, disinterested bystander, I don't see how infinity can be defined by any limited, confined, or known values. Infinity may contain xn number of dimensions, for all we know. How is this so hard to comprehend for people who theorize about life on other planets? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 23:09, July 29, 2021 (EDT)

Doing math in a natural language is sometimes difficult. Luckily, we can get rid of ambiguities by trying to formalize statements.I hope we can agree on the following:<blockquote>If x0.x1x2x3x4x5...... is the digital expansion of π, then a "infinite and unbroken sequence of digits in the representation of π (not starting with the first significant digit) equal to π" is given by xnxn+1xn+2xn+3xn+4xn+5......, with xn=3, xn+1=1, xn+2= 4, xn+3=1, and so on and n being a natural number</blockquote>
Thank you for your patience! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 01:38, July 30, 2021 (EDT)
:Yes, that's right. The aspect of [[infinity]] illustrated by the observation that [[pi]] contains pi is similar to several of the [[miracle]]s and [[parable]]s in the [[New Testament]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 13:10, July 30, 2021 (EDT)

From your "induction proof", I got the impression that you were looking for increasingly long strings resembling the leading digits of π - I looked up the first few for you:
{|
|'''x9'''x10||=||'''3'''5
|-
|'''x137x138'''x139||=||'''31'''7
|-
|'''x2120x2121x2122'''x2123||=||'''314'''2
|-
|'''x3496x3497x3498x3499'''x3450||=||'''3141'''2
|-
|'''x88008x88009x88010x88011x88012'''x88013||=||'''31415'''1
|-
|'''x146451x146452x146453x146454x146455x146456x146457'''x146458||=||'''314159'''7
|-
|'''x25198140x25198141x25198142x25198143x25198144x25198145x25198146x251981407'''x25198148||=||'''3141592'''1
|}

But this does not imply that the whole digital representation of π can be found as a consecutive string in π again. In fact, that is impossible.

Yours statement is like saying that as 1, 11, 111, 1111, 11.111, 111.111 and so on are natural numbers, an infinite string of 1s is a natural number, too: And I hope we can agree that this is a false statement.
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:41, July 30, 2021 (EDT)
:Your superb examples demonstrate that if true for "n" significant digits, then one can be found later having "n+1" significant digits. This reinforces the proof by induction. I don't see any support for your assertion "that is impossible." I also don't see any connection to your hypothesis about whether an infinite string of 1s is a "natural number," which is simply a matter of definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 21:30, July 30, 2021 (EDT)

::*''Your superb examples demonstrate that if true for "n" significant digits, then one can be found later having "n+1" significant digits.'' Thanks! But a few examples make no proof.
::*''This reinforces the proof by induction.'' No. It does not. As no one has proofed that π is a [[normal number]], your "proof by induction" is on shaky grounds.
::*''I don't see any support for your assertion "that is impossible."'' I put it at [[Talk:Conservapedia insights#Proof that π does not contain π:]] - it is somewhat of an overkill:
{|
|style="background-color:pink"|
#π is given as a digital expansion x0.x1x2x3x4x5...
#"finding π in π" means that there is an index n such that π starts all over again at xn
#If π starts again at n, then x0 = xn = 3, x1 = xn+1 = 1, x2 = xn+2 = 4, x3 = xn+3 = 1 and so on. "And so on" means that xk = xk+n for each natural number k, i.e.,. k ∈ N0.
#What happens if k equals n? What is the value of xn + n? According to the step above, xn + n =xn. But xn=x0=3 ! So, xn + n = xn=x0=3
#That's true for all multiples of n: if w ∈ N0, then xw n = x(w-1) n = .... = x2 n = xn = x0 = 3.
#What about xw n +k ( 0 ≤ k < n )? Again, xw n +k = x(w-1) n +k = x(w-2) n +k = x2 n +k = xn +k = xk
#So, for every natural number w and every number k with 0 ≤ k < n we have: xw n +k = xk. That makes π periodic, the length of the period is n.
#Therefore, π can be written as x0x1x2x3...xn-1 / (10n-1 -1) . But this is a rational number, and we know that π is irrational.
#We have a classical contradiction: As our result is wrong, our assumption that π is contained in π has to be wrong.
|}
::*''I also don't see any connection to your hypothesis about whether an infinite string of 1s is a "natural number," which is simply a matter of definition.'' In general, infinity is a difficult concept. But the simplest form of infinity is being "countably infinite". You should make yourself familiar with this concept. Then you would recognize that there is a difference between the statements:
::::#''a sequence contains a countably infinite number of finite sub-sequences with a certain property'' and
::::#''a sequence contains a countably infinite sub-sequence with a certain property''
:::The first statement does not imply the second one. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:44, July 31, 2021 (EDT)
::::Your proposed proof has the fallacy of assuming a termination on an infinite sequence (and thus periodicity). There is no such termination.
::::Your criticism of my proof by induction is also flawed. Do you really think that your examples for n and n+1 will stop existing in the infinite sequence of digits for [[pi]], at some large n? Your position essentially denies the extent of [[infinity]].
::::[[Infinity]] has no such limit. Embrace its vastness and make it work for you. It can be enormously beneficial at a personal level for someone's outlook, and not something to be resisted through [[infinity denial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:25, July 31, 2021 (EDT)

*"''Your proposed proof has the fallacy of assuming a termination on an infinite sequence (and thus periodicity). There is no such termination.''" That sounds impressive. The proof does not assume "a termination on an infinite sequence" - whatever you mean by this.
*"''Your criticism of my proof by induction is also flawed.''" I have been reluctant to address what you call your "proof by induction" - there is no way to do this charitably. But you forced my hand:

===Andrew Schlafly's "Proof by Induction"===
{|
|style="background-color:pink"|π contains π as one significant digit in a finite representation ("3": 3.14159265'''3'''....)
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|That's your '''base case''': as π does not equal 3, the sentence "π contains π as one significant digit" is wrong on face value. But, I assume you wanted to say something like "π contains a approximation of π of length 1." So, well done, I'll give you that. Now for the two parts of the '''induction step''':
|-
|style="background-color:pink"|assume π contains π as ''n'' significant digits in a finite representation of π
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|again, your '''induction hypothesis''' is okay: I'd use the phrase "approximation of π of length ''n''", but let's not quibble.
|-
|style="background-color:pink"|π must also contain π as ''n+1'' significant digits as the number of digits of π is stretched to [[infinity]]
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|'''''What? Why should this be true?''''' Mathematicians have not proofed yet that π is a [[normal number]]! You can easily construct a irrational number which contains an approximation of π of length 1010,000, but no approximation of length 1010,000 + 1 . Perhaps God constructed π this way - just to teach mathematicians a little humility. No one knows yet.
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|But even if your conclusion was true, you would have proofed only that π contains approximations of every imaginable '''''finite''''' length - not of '''''infinite length'''''. That is the same principle which allows you to count to every number, but never reach infinity.
|-
|style="background-color:pink"|Q.E.D.
|-
|style="background-color:lightblue"|Yeah, that's funny.
|}

Andy, I know that you will not be convinced by my arguments (even if you have read them) - you never are. But while getting something wrong in classical Greek makes you look uneducated to a very small minority of readers, being wrong when it comes to the concept of countable infinity makes you look stupid in the eyes of quite a bigger audience.

But therein lies a chance: I assume that you have no one in your circle of friends with whom you could discuss Koine, but I hope that there are mathematically educated persons whom you know: perhaps a high-school teacher, a mathematician (even a student will do) or a physicist, or someone else with comparable background? Ask them: get their help.

Seriously, yours [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:06, August 1, 2021 (EDT)
:Your [[infinity denial]] is illogical. I urge you to welcome and embrace [[infinity]] (yes, by implication [[eternity]]), and use it for your own benefit. I want you to realize all the happiness and glory it provides.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:52, August 2, 2021 (EDT)
::Are you still talking about mathematics? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 17:00, August 2, 2021 (EDT)

"assume pi contains pi as n significant digits in a finite representation of pi. Pi must also contain pi as n+1 significant digits" - so pi (assuming it's a normal number, as Augusto said) contains any truncated version of pi of any finite length (no matter how many zillions of digits). An infinite number of each truncation. It would also imply that any finite string of digits of pi would be replicated an infinite number of times elsewhere in the string of digits.

"as the number of digits of pi is stretched to infinity." Is it necessary that the pi within pi start at a digit infinitely far from the first digit? That would get around the periodicity issue.

The mathstack discussion:
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1608060/does-pi-contain-itself

I kind of like the idea of two points on a line being infinitely far from each other, with a third halfway in between, but I don't think that's part of the current standard set of axioms.

We're ignoring the decimal point, right? There's only one of those. Anyway, this is a pretty interesting discussion.

===Linking to this section from the article===
Andy, do you really think that it is a good idea to link to the above section '''on a talk-page''' from the main article on [[pi|π]]? And please, read the discussion! (ups, that was the second sentence of this paragraph - you probably already started skipping...) --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 05:23, August 3, 2021 (EDT)

User:AlChesapeake

2021-09-02T23:42:22Z

AlChesapeake: quick summary on why I joined

Jumped in here for the mathematical talk.