Talk:Indiana pi bill

Breakdown

There are so many online accounts of the Pi Bill that characterise its text as being completely self-contradictory that I'm sorely tempted to write a sentence-by-sentence breakdown of the bill, showing how all of it is derived from a relatively small number of initial fallacies. But that would be original research, and perhaps even what I've written in the article so far is on the wrong side of WP:OR. Henning Makholm 00:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, it's pretty good to see a semi-definative work on exactly what this all was about, considering how many WILDLY differing versions of it there are. 68.39.174.238 06:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Goodwin's first name

User:Father Goose said in an edit summary: every reference I can find that isn't derived from Wikipedia's work gives the name as Edwin Goodwin, not Edward.

I have no idea what he was actually called, but one pre-Wikipedia reference that does say Edward is the The Straight Dope writeup mentioned among the external link. Even it, however, ackowledges that other sources say Edwin. The middle initial J does not appear to be in doubt; it is also given by some sources that say Edwin. –Henning Makholm 19:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Alas, my main source, Underwood Dudley's wonderful book Mathematical Cranks, just uses the first initial. No help there. - DavidWBrooks 20:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification needed

"One argument used was that Goodwin had copyrighted his discovery, and proposed to let the State use it in the public schools for free."

From what I can see, the relevant copyright law was the Copyright Act of 1790 and AFAIK, even back then, just like today, you couldn't "copyright a discovery" or mathematical proof so the sentence seems a bit odd to me. I also don't see how this sentence fits in with the sentence before it. It's out of context - why does him letting the state use it in public schools for free (after he supposedly copyrighted it) serve as an argument favoring the law? Yonatan ^talk 17:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Enhancement

IMNSHO, this article would be greatly enhanced by a second figure showing the ACTUAL values of "7" and "8" (I calculate "8" to be ~ 7.854). As a suggestion. --Grndrush (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have an image like that, please feel free to add it to the article. Charles Edward (Talk) 14:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Why a bill?

The article doesn't make it clear why, given that they believed it to be true, the legislators wanted to enact this as a bill. Usually math isn't written into law, right? -- 92.229.181.211 (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The title of the bill explains the possible legislative component: "... and offered as a contribution to education to be used only by the State of Indiana free of cost by paying any royalties whatever". It was a bunch of hooey, so don't expect an overly sensible reason. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

An Apparently-Informed Rendition, Text of the Bill, and Names of Informed Individuals

Being also from Indiana, I recorded the following posting in the RISKS forum in 1994. --FrederickNoelChase (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 20:52:40 EST Subject: pi = 3 (Re: Wayner, RISKS-16.34)

Actually, my home state of Indiana did try to legislate that the value of pi should be 3. Here is some information from the alt.folklore.urban archives from an article written by Mark Bader (msb@sq.com) (Further information can be found in "Mathematical Cranks", Underwood Dudley, The Mathematical Association of America, Washington D.C.). James Dudley

THE STORY

The author of the bill was Dr. Edwin J. Goodwin, an M.D., of Solitude, Indiana. It seems that he was a crank mathematician. He contacted his Representative, one Taylor I. Record, with his epoch-making suggestion: if the State would pass an Act recognizing his discovery, he would allow all Indiana textbooks to use it without paying him a royalty.

Nobody in the Indiana Legislature knew enough mathematics to know that the "discovery" was nonsense. In due course the bill had its third House reading, and passed 67-0. At this point the text of the bill was published "and, of course, became the target for ridicule", "in this and other states".

By this time a real mathematician, Prof. C. A. Waldo, had learned what was going on. In fact, he was present when the bill was read on February 5, 1897. ("...imagine [the author's] surprise when he discovered that he was in the midst of a debate upon a piece of mathematical legislation. An ex-teacher was saying ... 'The case is perfectly simple. If we pass this bill which establishes a new and correct value for Pi, the author offers ... its free publication in our school text books, while everyone else must pay him a royalty'", Waldo wrote in a 1916 article.) But the House had passed the bill.

Fortunately, Indiana has a bicameral legislature. The bill came up for first reading in the Senate on Thursday, February 11. Apparently in fun, they referred it to the Committee on Temperance. The Committee reported back on Friday, February 12, approving the bill, which then had its second reading.

The Indianapolis Journal reported what happened: "The Senators made bad puns about it, ridiculed it, and laughed over it. The fun lasted half an hour. Senator Hubbell said that it was not meet for the Senate, which was costing the State $250 a day [!], to waste its time in such frivolity ... He moved the indefinite postponement of the bill, and the motion carried. ... All of the senators who spoke on the bill admitted that they were ignorant of the merits of the proposition. [In the end,] it was simply regarded as not being a subject for legislation."

ANNOTATED TEXT OF THE BILL

/*  Following is the text of Indiana House Bill #246 of 1897, with my
 *  own annotations (in comment signs and exdented, like this text).
 *  In my annotations, A, r, d, c, and s are respectively the circle's
 *  area, radius, diameter, circumference, and the side of the inscribed
 *  square.  */

             A bill for an act introducing a  new  mathematical
       truth  and  offered as a contribution to education to be
       used only by the State of Indiana free of cost by paying
       any  royalties  whatever on the same, provided it is ac-
       cepted and adopted by the official action  of  the  leg-
       islature of 1897.

/*  You normally have to pay royalties on mathematical truths?
 *  The Pythagoras estate must be doing well by now...  */


       SECTION 1.
             Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State
       of Indiana: It has been found that a circular area is to
       the square on a line equal to the quadrant of  the  cir-
       cumference,  as  the area of an equilateral rectangle is
       to the square on one side.

/*  The part after the last comma is a remarkable way of saying
 *  "as 1 is to 1".  In other words, this says A = (c/4)^2, which
 *  is the same as A = (pi*r/2)^2 = (pi^2/4)*r^2 instead of the
 *  actual A = pi*r^2.  */

                           The diameter employed as the  linear
       unit  according  to  the  present  rule in computing the
       circle's area is entirely wrong, as  it  represents  the
       circle's  area  one  and  one-fifth  times the area of a
       square whose perimeter is equal to the circumference  of
       the circle.

/*  The formula A = pi*r^2 is interpreted as A = d*(c/4), which is correct.
 *  The author claims that the d factor should be c/4, so the ratio of
 *  the area by the author's formula to the area by the real formula
 *  is c/(4*d), that is, pi/4.  Since he believes pi = 3.2, this ratio
 *  is 3.2/4, which is 4/5.  Therefore the area by the author's rule
 *  is 1/5 smaller than the actual area.  Now he apparently thinks that
 *  the reciprocal of 1-1/5 is 1+1/5, and thus that the other area is
 *  1/5 larger than his area, which of course would actually require
 *  the ratio to be 5/6.  */

                           This is because one-fifth of the di-
       ameter  fails  to  be  represented  four  times  in  the
       circle's circumference.

/*  In other words, c = (1-1/5) * (4*d); consistent with pi = 3.2.  */

                           For example: if we multiply the per-
       imeter  of  a square by one-fourth of any line one-fifth
       greater than one side, we can in like  manner  make  the
       square's area to appear one fifth greater than the fact,
       as is done by taking the diameter for  the  linear  unit
       instead of the quadrant of the circle's circumference.

/*  He says that if we consider the area of a square of side x to be
 *  (4*x)*(x/4) and we replace the second x by (1+1/5)*x, we get an
 *  area 1/5 too large, and this is analogous to using d in place of
 *  c/4 with the circle.  */


       SECTION 2.
             It is impossible to compute the area of  a  circle
       on  the diameter as the linear unit without  trespassing
       upon the area outside the circle to the  extent  of  in-
       cluding one-fifth more area than is contained within the
       circle's circumference, because the square on the diame-
       ter produces the side of a square which equals nine when
       the arc of ninety degrees equals eight.

/*  I can only assume that "nine" is a mistake for "ten".  See also
 *  the annotation after the next one.  */

                           By  taking  the  quadrant   of   the
       circle's  circumference  for the linear unit, we fulfill
       the requirements of both quadrature and rectification of
       the circle's circumference.

/*  Getting repetitive here...  */

                           Furthermore, it has revealed the ra-
       tio  of the chord and arc of ninety degrees, which is as
       seven to eight, and also the ratio of the  diagonal  and
       one  side of a square which is as ten to seven, disclos-
       ing the fourth important fact, that the ratio of the di-
       ameter and circumference is as five-fourths to four; and
       because of these facts and the further fact that the rule
       in  present  use fails to work both ways mathematically,
       it should be discarded as wholly wanting and  misleading
       in its practical applications.

/*  The meat of the bill.  He says that s/(c/4) = 7/8, and d/s = 10/7,
 *  therefore d/c = (10/7)*(7/8)/4, which he reduces only as far as
 *  (5/4)/4.  Of course this is 5/16, and gives pi = c/d = 16/5 = 3.2.
 *  It also implies that the square root of 2 is 10/7.  */


       SECTION 3.
             In further proof of the value of the author's pro-
       posed  contribution  to education, and offered as a gift
       to the State of Indiana, is the fact of his solutions of
       the trisection of the angle, duplication of the cube and
       quadrature of the circle having been already accepted as
       contributions  to  science  by the American Mathematical
       Monthly, the leading exponent of mathematical thought in
       this country.

/*  When I first posted this I assumed that the A.M.M. must have had a
 *  policy of politely acknowledging crankish submissions, but apparently
 *  at one time they simply printed whatever they were sent.  I haven't
 *  checked this out.  */

                           And be it remembered that these not-
       ed  problems  had been long since given up by scientific
       bodies as unsolvable mysteries and above  man's  ability
       to comprehend.

/*  "Given up" is not the same as "proved insoluble"!  */

In popular culture

I moved text that was added which mentioned a reference made to the bill by a Catholic priest in New Zealand in the context of gay marriage laws. It certainly does not belong in the Lede section, but it's questionable whether it even belongs in the article at all. Discussion? — Loadmaster (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• It definitely belongs into the article, because it's funny how bigoted fundies are. /rant 188.230.133.58 (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it belongs in the story because it's an example of this issue existing "in the wild" so to speak and thus gives the reader some idea of the importance of the issue. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The Indiana Pi Bill has quite a presence in contemporary culture, and this article actually understates it. Seems to need fleshing out. BTW, I remember it from my 6th grade math textbook (many years ago) - but it would be difficult to locate cites to that or similar textbooks. Huangdi (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The hard part, of course, is getting usable references. As we all know, people's memories are unreliable and not enough in themselves for an article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

What about the value 4?

I've come across one or two statements to the effect that Indiana defined π to be 4. One of these is The World's Stupidest Laws (Michael O'Mara Books); I've also a recollection of the Guinness Book of Records many years ago stating it as the most inaccurate value claimed for π; it was probably referring to this bill but I'm not sure. A quick Google search reveals a few references to this value in the first two pages of results.

It seems to me that the claim that π = 4 ought to be at least mentioned in the article. But can we find suitable sources? — Smjg (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No specific value of π is contained in the bill. David Singmaster claimed that by following the algorithms implied in the bill several different values of π would be calculated, none of them even approximately correct. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The section of the article on the area of a circle brings up the value of 4 as a misinterpretation of the contents of the bill. That is probably more than enough than this factoid deserves. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, I don't know how I managed to miss that. The square of a quarter of the circumference would be ${\frac {\pi ^{2}r^{2}}{4}}$, so it would be a correct formula for the area of a circle only if π were equal to 4. — Smjg (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

I have just hidden the infobox after having already reverted it and having it replaced. The claim was that it was a work in progress and I shouldn't have reverted it. I have two comments, the first a technical one. The box was poorly formed and contained incorrect information, claiming that the legislation was passed three years before the assembly was in session and that the date enacted was–wait for it–Goodwin ???? Things like this should not appear in public spaces and should be worked on in a sandbox until it is correct and ready to be viewed. I could have corrected the errors, but that brings me to my second and more significant comment. Infoboxes are not suitable for all articles. When they work well they provide essential information at a glance that conveys important aspects of the article. On the other hand, this is not always possible (see the essay Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes). In this particular case, the only information that would appear in the box is trivia surrounding the issue. What makes this topic notable is not the legislation, but the fact that this legislation was even considered in the first place and an infobox is not going to be able to convey that notability. In my original revert I had called this infobox "useless" and I stand by that assessment.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your latter point; this is not the sort of article that needs an infobox - it's repetitive clutter, at best. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

There is legislative history in the article can be more easily tracked using an infobox, for instance see Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that shows the bill passing through the various branches of Congress.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The history isn't long enough to justify an infobox, especially since it didn't even pass into law. The text is more than sufficient, I'd say. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

It actually passed in the House but was tabled in the senate. Seems like enough history to need to be listed in a chronological infobox.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

While I am glad to see that the infobox now contains correct information, I am afraid that in its completed form it just proves my point–it does not convey any useful information about the topic, only trivial details. The story being told here is not "how a bill becomes a law (or not)", it is more of a cautionary tale concerning politicians and their understanding of science (or lack thereof). This infobox does not come close to conveying any significant information about this topic. Worse is the placement of the infobox at the top of the article where a naive reader might just look at it and decide that the article is about "some boring legal thing" and decide to skip it. I think it should be removed. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 05:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree - it serves no purpose, adds no information or format that isn't available in the article, and may confuse readers. Remove it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Nobody else stepped up to support the infobox, so I'm hiding it again. It's a distraction, not a help to readers. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)