4 ms·

Indiana Almost Made pi = 3.2

28 points by azhenley 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
savant_penguin 5y ago
But why not 3.1?
- Jeff_Brown 5y ago
  If you search for the first appearance of the word "Goodwin", the proof (sic) is sketched in the paragraph immediately after.
Jeff_Brown 5y ago
That post links to this one, in which Scott Aaronson describes how to recognize mathematical crankery: https://web.archive.org/web/20150506055228/http://www.timecube.com/index.html https://web.archive.org/web/20150506055228/http://www.timecu... That in turn links to Sean Carroll's guide for how not to be dismissed as a scientiic crank: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2007/06/19/the-alternative-science-respectability-checklist/ https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2007/06/19/the-alt... I was expecting at least one of those to mention the line "that's what they want you to think", but it does not. I guess I'm exposed to a lot of economic and political science crankery. I'd enjoy similar compendia of pitfalls of that kind of crank.
- teilo 5y ago
  I had completely forgotten about the time cube crankery. I was exposed to this by some other proponent who was much more rational and able to speak in complete and understandable sentences. That only made the concept more irrational.
  - nunez 5y ago
    Yeah time cube was HUGE when I was in college (2005-2010). I think it got a mention in a popular TV show at the time.
jccc 5y ago
In 1897. "So in 1897 he approached the Indiana state legislature with a proposal: if they officially declared the proof correct, he’d let them use it free of charge, thereby saving a lot of money on royalties."
aidenn0 5y ago
TFA spells my Alma Mater's name wrong; it's "Purdue" not "Perdue"
version_five 5y ago
This is not that different from the "serious" discussion now about NFTs, and other crypto stuff. We've got something that's objectively nonsense but people don't want to look stupid so they pretend they understand and participate in it. There was a thing recently about KPMG buying an NFT. NFTs were being sold at Sotheby's or Christie's (until whatever tech bros ran the NFT pulled out to troll them), etc. Its all BS, but for laypeople, it's just a different brand of magic they don't understand. No different with this Pi thing (except eventually they were smart enough not to go through with it)
cbfrench 5y ago
The Underwood Dudley article on “trisectors” linked in OP’s article is one of the more delightful things I’ve read in awhile. Being acquainted with a few cranks myself, I always find the energy and time they have to devote to crankery both impressive and sad.
6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
This is an instance of being just plain wrong, but imagine what it means for actual important things, or things with adversarial “experts.” If they can’t be trusted to evaluate whether pi is 3.2, why would they do better with climate change or links between smoking and cancer?

28 points by azhenley 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

savant_penguin 5y ago

But why not 3.1?

Jeff_Brown 5y ago
If you search for the first appearance of the word "Goodwin", the proof (sic) is sketched in the paragraph immediately after.

Jeff_Brown 5y ago

That post links to this one, in which Scott Aaronson describes how to recognize mathematical crankery: https://web.archive.org/web/20150506055228/http://www.timecube.com/index.html https://web.archive.org/web/20150506055228/http://www.timecu... That in turn links to Sean Carroll's guide for how not to be dismissed as a scientiic crank: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2007/06/19/the-alternative-science-respectability-checklist/ https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2007/06/19/the-alt... I was expecting at least one of those to mention the line "that's what they want you to think", but it does not. I guess I'm exposed to a lot of economic and political science crankery. I'd enjoy similar compendia of pitfalls of that kind of crank.

teilo 5y ago
I had completely forgotten about the time cube crankery. I was exposed to this by some other proponent who was much more rational and able to speak in complete and understandable sentences. That only made the concept more irrational.
- nunez 5y ago
  Yeah time cube was HUGE when I was in college (2005-2010). I think it got a mention in a popular TV show at the time.

jccc 5y ago

In 1897. "So in 1897 he approached the Indiana state legislature with a proposal: if they officially declared the proof correct, he’d let them use it free of charge, thereby saving a lot of money on royalties."

aidenn0 5y ago

TFA spells my Alma Mater's name wrong; it's "Purdue" not "Perdue"

version_five 5y ago

This is not that different from the "serious" discussion now about NFTs, and other crypto stuff. We've got something that's objectively nonsense but people don't want to look stupid so they pretend they understand and participate in it. There was a thing recently about KPMG buying an NFT. NFTs were being sold at Sotheby's or Christie's (until whatever tech bros ran the NFT pulled out to troll them), etc. Its all BS, but for laypeople, it's just a different brand of magic they don't understand. No different with this Pi thing (except eventually they were smart enough not to go through with it)

cbfrench 5y ago

The Underwood Dudley article on “trisectors” linked in OP’s article is one of the more delightful things I’ve read in awhile. Being acquainted with a few cranks myself, I always find the energy and time they have to devote to crankery both impressive and sad.

6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago

This is an instance of being just plain wrong, but imagine what it means for actual important things, or things with adversarial “experts.” If they can’t be trusted to evaluate whether pi is 3.2, why would they do better with climate change or links between smoking and cancer?