4 ms·

Huh?! The "duplicates" in decoder ring you mentioned, are actually different letters that differ in their sound. I commented about it elsewhere in this page.

by swatkat 13y ago

waps 13y ago
Then please fix the transliteration and the ring. Isn't the whole point of transliteration is that you can "accurately" reproduce the sound ? "Sa" means 4 different numbers in order to make it work. That's not reasonable. Even if it does fit, it's still a hoax. Look how far shakespeare got. Do you believe that he intentionally put 8 references to 7 digit approximations in his texts ? Without (at least) the inverse tangent expansion of pi, this number could not have been constructed. Furthermore, if it came from divine inspiration, there's a glaring omission : why doesn't it mention the irrational nature of Pi ? Otherwise even a 100 digit approximation would lead any reasonable reader to a wrong conclusion. In this case to nothing better than an Indian version of this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill. Every "real" mathematical book on Pi contains three proofs. First that it is irrational (that you can only approximate Pi, it doesn't have any finite representation), that some method of series expansion approximates Pi, and that said series converges. Without these 3 bits of data you don't know what Pi is. The actual value of Pi is almost inconsequential, and can be trivially measured using a rope and a measuring stick by a first grader to an accuracy of at least 10 digits. Alternatively you could calculate without an explicit value, like the ancient Greeks did. Furthermore there's nothing special about this. When it comes to written references to the value of Pi, there are documents going back ~4000 years (E.g. the Rhynd papyrus). If you accept buildings that could not have been constructed without an approximation of Pi's value, then we can go back 6000 years before we really get into trouble. If you accept the reasoning that pyramids which are the "internal" pyramid of a ball shape could not have been a coincidence, knowledge of pi (which is necessary to construct such a shape) goes back nearly 10000 years.
- swatkat 13y ago
  I'm not the author of that blog, so can't fix it :) Here's the link that talks about consonants: http://www.languagereef.com/consonanttable.php?lang=SANSKRIT http://www.languagereef.com/consonanttable.php?lang=SANSKRIT Also, I don't have any comments about that Pi verse itself. From what I gather, it's first occurrence was in a book from 1965. So, may be it's a retro-logic based on Katapayadi system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katapayadi_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katapayadi_system).

Huh?! The "duplicates" in decoder ring you mentioned, are actually different letters that differ in their sound. I commented about it elsewhere in this page.

by swatkat 13y ago

Huh?! The "duplicates" in decoder ring you mentioned, are actually different letters that differ in their sound. I commented about it elsewhere in this page.

waps 13y ago

Then please fix the transliteration and the ring. Isn't the whole point of transliteration is that you can "accurately" reproduce the sound ? "Sa" means 4 different numbers in order to make it work. That's not reasonable. Even if it does fit, it's still a hoax. Look how far shakespeare got. Do you believe that he intentionally put 8 references to 7 digit approximations in his texts ? Without (at least) the inverse tangent expansion of pi, this number could not have been constructed. Furthermore, if it came from divine inspiration, there's a glaring omission : why doesn't it mention the irrational nature of Pi ? Otherwise even a 100 digit approximation would lead any reasonable reader to a wrong conclusion. In this case to nothing better than an Indian version of this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill. Every "real" mathematical book on Pi contains three proofs. First that it is irrational (that you can only approximate Pi, it doesn't have any finite representation), that some method of series expansion approximates Pi, and that said series converges. Without these 3 bits of data you don't know what Pi is. The actual value of Pi is almost inconsequential, and can be trivially measured using a rope and a measuring stick by a first grader to an accuracy of at least 10 digits. Alternatively you could calculate without an explicit value, like the ancient Greeks did. Furthermore there's nothing special about this. When it comes to written references to the value of Pi, there are documents going back ~4000 years (E.g. the Rhynd papyrus). If you accept buildings that could not have been constructed without an approximation of Pi's value, then we can go back 6000 years before we really get into trouble. If you accept the reasoning that pyramids which are the "internal" pyramid of a ball shape could not have been a coincidence, knowledge of pi (which is necessary to construct such a shape) goes back nearly 10000 years.

swatkat 13y ago
I'm not the author of that blog, so can't fix it :) Here's the link that talks about consonants: http://www.languagereef.com/consonanttable.php?lang=SANSKRIT http://www.languagereef.com/consonanttable.php?lang=SANSKRIT Also, I don't have any comments about that Pi verse itself. From what I gather, it's first occurrence was in a book from 1965. So, may be it's a retro-logic based on Katapayadi system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katapayadi_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katapayadi_system).