Revision as of 20:33, 14 March 2022 editEditerC (talk | contribs)4 editsmNo edit summaryTags: Reverted Visual edit← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:58, 12 November 2024 edit undoScienceFlyer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,121 edits not a law | ||
(42 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Short description|1897 proposed law to define squaring the circle}} | ||
<!--{{Infobox legislation | <!--{{Infobox legislation | ||
|short_title = Indiana |
|short_title = Indiana pi bill | ||
|legislature = ] | |legislature = ] | ||
|image = | |image = | ||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
--> | --> | ||
] | ] | ||
⚫ | The '''Indiana |
||
⚫ | The '''Indiana pi bill''' was bill 246 of the 1897 sitting of the ], one of the most notorious attempts to establish ] by ]. Despite its name, the main result claimed by the bill is a method to ]. The bill implies incorrect values of the ], the ratio of the ] of a circle to its ].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Wilkins |first1=Alasdair |title=The Eccentric Crank Who Tried To Legislate The Value Of Pi |url=https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-eccentric-crank-who-tried-to-legislate-the-value-of-5880792 |website=io9 |date=31 January 2012 |access-date=23 May 2019}}</ref> The bill, written by a physician and an amateur mathematician, never became law due to the intervention of ], a professor at ], who happened to be present in the legislature on the day it went up for a vote. | ||
⚫ | The mathematical impossibility of squaring the circle using only ], suspected since ancient times, had been |
||
⚫ | The mathematical impossibility of squaring the circle using only ]s, suspected since ancient times, had been proven 15 years previously, in 1882, by ]. Better approximations of {{pi}} than those implied by the bill have been known since ancient times. | ||
== Legislative history == | == Legislative history == | ||
] | ] | ||
In 1894, ] physician Edward J. Goodwin (ca. 1825–1902<ref>{{harvnb|Dudley|1992|p=195}}, citing an obituary</ref>) believed that he had discovered a correct way of squaring the circle.<ref>Edward J. Goodwin (July 1894) ''American Mathematical Monthly'', '''1'''(7): 246–248. | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
In 1894, ] physician Edward J. Goodwin ({{circa|1825}} – 1902<ref>{{harvnb|Dudley|1992|p=195}}, citing an obituary</ref>), also called "Edwin Goodwin" by some sources,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://purdue.edu/newsroom/purduetoday/didyouknow/2016/Q1/did-you-know-purdue-and-indianas-pi-bill.html|title=Did You Know?: Purdue and Indiana's Pi Bill - News - Purdue University|website=purdue.edu}}</ref> believed that he had discovered a way of squaring the circle.<ref> | |||
⚫ | The text of the bill consists of a series of mathematical claims |
||
{{cite journal |last=Goodwin |first=Edward J. |title=Quadrature of the Circle |department=Queries and Information |journal=American Mathematical Monthly |volume=1 |number=7 |year=1894 |pages=246–247 |doi=10.2307/2971093 |jstor=2971093 |doi-access=free }} | |||
{{pb}} | |||
⚫ | Reprinted in: Lennart Berggren, Jonathan Borwein, and Peter Borwein, ''Pi: A Source Book'', 3rd ed. (New York, New York: Springer-Verlag, 2004), | ||
{{pb}} | |||
⚫ | See also: .{{pb}} | ||
⚫ | Edward J. Goodwin (1895) ''American Mathematical Monthly'', '''2''': 337.</ref> He proposed a bill to state representative Taylor I. Record, who introduced it in the House under the title "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 accepted and adopted by the official action of the Legislature of 1897". | ||
⚫ | The text of the bill consists of a series of mathematical claims, followed by a recitation of Goodwin's previous accomplishments: | ||
{{quote|... his solutions of the ], ] and ] having been already accepted as contributions to science by the '']'' ... And be it remembered that these noted problems had been long since given up by scientific bodies as unsolvable mysteries and above man's ability to comprehend.}} | {{quote|... his solutions of the ], ] and ] having been already accepted as contributions to science by the '']'' ... And be it remembered that these noted problems had been long since given up by scientific bodies as unsolvable mysteries and above man's ability to comprehend.}} | ||
Goodwin's "solutions" were indeed published in the ''American Mathematical Monthly'', |
(Goodwin's "solutions" were indeed published in the ''American Mathematical Monthly'', with a disclaimer of "published by request of the author".)<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/mamarim/mamarimhtml/ClearAFJ |title=Clearing the Misunderstanding Re My April Fool's 'Joke' |work=math.rutgers.edu}}</ref> | ||
Upon its introduction in the ], the bill's language and topic |
Upon its introduction in the ], the bill's language and topic caused confusion; a member proposed that it be referred to the Finance Committee, but the Speaker accepted another member's recommendation to refer the bill to the Committee on Swamplands, where the bill could "find a deserved grave". It was transferred to the Committee on Education, which reported favorably.<ref name=purdue>{{cite web|url=http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/crd/Localgov/Second%20Level%20pages/Indiana_Pi_Story.htm |title=Indiana Pi|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190221183039/http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/crd/Localgov/Second%20Level%20pages/Indiana_Pi_Story.htm|archive-date=2019-02-21}}</ref> Following a motion to ], the bill passed on February 6, 1897{{sfn|Hallerburg|1975|loc=}} without a dissenting vote.<ref name=purdue /> | ||
The news of the bill |
The news of the bill caused an alarmed response from ''Der Tägliche Telegraph'', a ] newspaper in Indianapolis, which viewed the event with less favor than its English-speaking competitors.{{sfn|Hallerburg|1975|loc=}} As this debate concluded, ] professor ] arrived in ] to secure the annual appropriation for the ]. An assemblyman handed him the bill, offering to introduce him to the genius who wrote it. He declined, saying that he already met as many crazy people as he cared to.<ref name=purdue /><ref name="waldo-ref">{{cite journal|last1=Waldo|first1=C. A.|title=What Might Have Been|journal=Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science|date=1916|pages=445–446|url=https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/14641808#page/455/|access-date=24 April 2017|ref=waldo-ref}}</ref> | ||
When it reached the ], the bill was not treated |
When it reached the ], the bill was not treated as kindly, for Waldo had talked to the senators previously. The Committee on Temperance to which it had been assigned had reported it favorably, but the Senate on February 12, 1897, ]. It had been nearly passed, but opinion changed when one senator observed that the General Assembly lacked the power to define mathematical truth.{{sfn|Hallerburg|1975|loc=}} Influencing some of the senators was a report that major newspapers, such as the '']'', were ridiculing the situation.{{sfn|Hallerburg|1975|loc=}} | ||
According to the ''Indianapolis News'' article of February 13, |
According to the ''Indianapolis News'' article of February 13, 1897:<ref name="indianapolis-news">{{cite news|title=THE MATHEMATICAL BILL. Fun-Making In the Senate Yester-day Afternoon--Other Action.|url=https://newspapers.library.in.gov/cgi-bin/indiana?a=d&d=INN18970213-01.1.11|access-date=24 April 2017|work=Indianapolis News|date=13 February 1897|ref=indianapolis-news}}</ref> | ||
<blockquote>... the bill was brought up and made fun of. |
<blockquote>... the bill was brought up and made fun of. 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 said that in reading the leading newspapers of Chicago and the East, he found that the Indiana State Legislature had laid itself open to ridicule by the action already taken on the bill. He thought consideration of such a proposition was not dignified or worthy of the Senate. He moved the indefinite postponement of the bill, and the motion carried.<ref name=purdue /></blockquote> | ||
== Mathematics == | == Mathematics == | ||
⚫ | {{Pi box}} | ||
=== Approximation of {{pi}} === | === Approximation of {{pi}} === | ||
Although the bill has become known as the " |
Although the bill has become known as the "pi bill", its text does not mention the name "pi" at all. Goodwin appears to have thought of the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle as distinctly secondary to his main aim of squaring the circle. Towards the end of Section 2, the following passage appears: | ||
{{quote|Furthermore, it has revealed the ratio 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, disclosing the fourth important fact, that the ratio of the diameter and circumference is as five-fourths to four<ref name="bill_text"> |
{{quote|Furthermore, it has revealed the ratio 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, disclosing the fourth important fact, that the ratio of the diameter and circumference is as five-fourths to four<ref name="bill_text">{{Cite web|url=http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/crd/Localgov/Second%20Level%20pages/indiana_pi_bill.htm |title=Text of the bill|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130627171859/http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/crd/Localgov/Second%20Level%20pages/indiana_pi_bill.htm |archive-date=2013-06-27 }}</ref>}} | ||
In other words, <math display=inline>\pi = \frac4{1.25} = 3.2</math>, and <math display=inline>\sqrt2=\frac{10}7 \approx 1.429</math>. | |||
This quotation is often read as three mutually incompatible assertions, but they fit together well if the statement about {{radic|2}} is taken to be about the inscribed square (with the circle's diameter as diagonal) rather than the square on the radius (with the chord of 90° as diagonal). Together they describe the circle shown in the figure, whose diameter is 10 and circumference is 32; the chord of 90° is taken to be 7. Both of the values 7 and 32 are within a few percent of the true lengths for a diameter-10 circle (which does not justify Goodwin's presentation of them as exact). The circumference should be nearer to 31.4159 and the diagonal "7" should be the ] of 50 (=25+25), or nearer to 7.071. | |||
=== Area of the circle === | === Area of the circle === | ||
Goodwin's main goal was not to measure lengths in the circle but to |
Goodwin's main goal was not to measure lengths in the circle but to ]. He knew that ]' formula for the area of a circle, which calls for multiplying the diameter by one-fourth of the circumference, is not considered a solution to the ancient problem of squaring the circle. | ||
This is because the problem is to |
This is because the problem is to construct the area using a ] only. Archimedes did not give a method for constructing a straight line with the same length as the circumference. Goodwin was unaware of this central requirement; he believed that the problem with the Archimedean formula was that it gave wrong numerical results; a solution to the ancient problem should replace it with a "correct" formula. So, he proposed, without argument, his method: | ||
{{quote|It has been found that a circular area is to the square on a line equal to the quadrant of the circumference, as the area of an equilateral rectangle is to the square on one side.<ref name="bill_text" />}} | {{quote|It has been found that a circular area is to the square on a line equal to the quadrant of the circumference, as the area of an equilateral rectangle is to the square on one side.<ref name="bill_text" />}} | ||
An "] rectangle" is, by definition, a ]. This is an assertion that the area of a circle is the same as that of a square with the same perimeter. This claim results in mathematical contradictions to which Goodwin attempts to respond. For example, right after the above quotation: | |||
{{quote|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.}} | {{quote|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.}} | ||
In the model circle above, the Archimedean area (accepting Goodwin's values for the circumference and diameter) would be 80 |
In the model circle above, the Archimedean area (accepting Goodwin's values for the circumference and diameter) would be 80. Goodwin's proposed rule leads to an area of 64. | ||
The area found by Goodwin's rule is { |
The area found by Goodwin's rule is <math display=inline>\tfrac{\pi}{4}</math> times the true area of the circle, which, in many accounts of the pi bill, is interpreted as a claim that <math display=inline>\pi = 4</math>, but there is no evidence in the bill that Goodwin intended to make such a claim. He repeatedly denied that the area of the circle has anything to do with its diameter. | ||
The relative ''area'' error of 1 − {{sfrac|{{pi}}|4}} works out to about 21 percent, which is much more grave than the approximations of the ''lengths'' in the model circle of the previous section. It is unknown what made Goodwin believe that his rule could be correct. In general, figures with identical perimeters do not have identical area (see ]); the typical demonstration of this fact is to compare a long thin shape with a small enclosed area (the area approaching zero as the width decreases) to one of the same perimeter that is approximately as tall as it is wide (the area approaching the square of the width), obviously of much greater area. | |||
⚫ | {{Pi box}} | ||
== Notes == | == Notes == | ||
Line 98: | Line 97: | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
* {{cite journal |last=Hallerburg |first=Arthur E. |year=1975 |title=House Bill No. 246 Revisited |journal=Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science |volume=84 |pages=374–399 |url=https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/ias/article/view/8180 }} . | |||
{{refbegin}} | |||
* |
* {{cite journal |last= Hallerberg |first=Arthur E. |year=1977 |title=Indiana's Squared Circle |journal=Mathematics Magazine |volume=50 |issue=3 |pages=136–140 |doi=10.1080/0025570X.1977.11976632 |jstor=2689499 }} Hallerberg gives a good account of the bill. | ||
* David Singmaster, in "The legal values of pi" (''Mathematical Intelligencer'', vol. 7 (1985), pp. 69–72) finds seven different values of pi implied in Goodwin's work. | * David Singmaster, in "The legal values of pi" (''Mathematical Intelligencer'', vol. 7 (1985), pp. 69–72) finds seven different values of pi implied in Goodwin's work. | ||
* ], '']''. St. Martin's Press; 1971. | * ], '']''. St. Martin's Press; 1971. | ||
* ''Mathematics: From the Birth of Numbers'', published by W. W. Norton in 1997 ({{ISBN|0-393-04002-X}} ), by ] | |||
* {{ citation | first = Underwood | last = Dudley | publisher = Cambridge University Press | year = 1992 | isbn=0-88385-507-0 | title = Mathematical Cranks | title-link=Mathematical Cranks | series = MAA spectrum | chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=HqeoWPsIH6EC&pg=PA192 | chapter = Legislating Pi | pages = 192 sq}} | * {{ citation | first = Underwood | last = Dudley | publisher = Cambridge University Press | year = 1992 | isbn=0-88385-507-0 | title = Mathematical Cranks | title-link=Mathematical Cranks | series = MAA spectrum | chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=HqeoWPsIH6EC&pg=PA192 | chapter = Legislating Pi | pages = 192 sq}} | ||
{{refend}} | |||
== External links == | == External links == | ||
* ] on Wikisource | |||
* ] – | |||
* ] – |
* ] – | ||
* ] – a related hoax | |||
{{Indiana history}} | {{Indiana history}} |
Latest revision as of 23:58, 12 November 2024
1897 proposed law to define squaring the circleThe Indiana pi bill was bill 246 of the 1897 sitting of the Indiana General Assembly, one of the most notorious attempts to establish mathematical truth by legislative fiat. Despite its name, the main result claimed by the bill is a method to square the circle. The bill implies incorrect values of the mathematical constant π, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. The bill, written by a physician and an amateur mathematician, never became law due to the intervention of C. A. Waldo, a professor at Purdue University, who happened to be present in the legislature on the day it went up for a vote.
The mathematical impossibility of squaring the circle using only straightedge and compass constructions, suspected since ancient times, had been proven 15 years previously, in 1882, by Ferdinand von Lindemann. Better approximations of π than those implied by the bill have been known since ancient times.
Legislative history
In 1894, Indiana physician Edward J. Goodwin (c. 1825 – 1902), also called "Edwin Goodwin" by some sources, believed that he had discovered a way of squaring the circle. He proposed a bill to state representative Taylor I. Record, who introduced it in the House under the title "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 accepted and adopted by the official action of the Legislature of 1897".
The text of the bill consists of a series of mathematical claims, followed by a recitation of Goodwin's previous accomplishments:
... his solutions of the trisection of the angle, doubling the cube and quadrature of the circle having been already accepted as contributions to science by the American Mathematical Monthly ... And be it remembered that these noted problems had been long since given up by scientific bodies as unsolvable mysteries and above man's ability to comprehend.
(Goodwin's "solutions" were indeed published in the American Mathematical Monthly, with a disclaimer of "published by request of the author".)
Upon its introduction in the Indiana House of Representatives, the bill's language and topic caused confusion; a member proposed that it be referred to the Finance Committee, but the Speaker accepted another member's recommendation to refer the bill to the Committee on Swamplands, where the bill could "find a deserved grave". It was transferred to the Committee on Education, which reported favorably. Following a motion to suspend the rules, the bill passed on February 6, 1897 without a dissenting vote.
The news of the bill caused an alarmed response from Der Tägliche Telegraph, a German-language newspaper in Indianapolis, which viewed the event with less favor than its English-speaking competitors. As this debate concluded, Purdue University professor C. A. Waldo arrived in Indianapolis to secure the annual appropriation for the Indiana Academy of Science. An assemblyman handed him the bill, offering to introduce him to the genius who wrote it. He declined, saying that he already met as many crazy people as he cared to.
When it reached the Indiana Senate, the bill was not treated as kindly, for Waldo had talked to the senators previously. The Committee on Temperance to which it had been assigned had reported it favorably, but the Senate on February 12, 1897, postponed the bill indefinitely. It had been nearly passed, but opinion changed when one senator observed that the General Assembly lacked the power to define mathematical truth. Influencing some of the senators was a report that major newspapers, such as the Chicago Tribune, were ridiculing the situation.
According to the Indianapolis News article of February 13, 1897:
... the bill was brought up and made fun of. 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 said that in reading the leading newspapers of Chicago and the East, he found that the Indiana State Legislature had laid itself open to ridicule by the action already taken on the bill. He thought consideration of such a proposition was not dignified or worthy of the Senate. He moved the indefinite postponement of the bill, and the motion carried.
Mathematics
Part of a series of articles on the |
mathematical constant π |
---|
3.1415926535897932384626433... |
Uses |
Properties |
Value |
People |
History |
In culture |
Related topics |
Approximation of π
Although the bill has become known as the "pi bill", its text does not mention the name "pi" at all. Goodwin appears to have thought of the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle as distinctly secondary to his main aim of squaring the circle. Towards the end of Section 2, the following passage appears:
Furthermore, it has revealed the ratio 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, disclosing the fourth important fact, that the ratio of the diameter and circumference is as five-fourths to four
In other words, , and .
Area of the circle
Goodwin's main goal was not to measure lengths in the circle but to find a square with the same area as the circle. He knew that Archimedes' formula for the area of a circle, which calls for multiplying the diameter by one-fourth of the circumference, is not considered a solution to the ancient problem of squaring the circle.
This is because the problem is to construct the area using a compass and straightedge only. Archimedes did not give a method for constructing a straight line with the same length as the circumference. Goodwin was unaware of this central requirement; he believed that the problem with the Archimedean formula was that it gave wrong numerical results; a solution to the ancient problem should replace it with a "correct" formula. So, he proposed, without argument, his method:
It has been found that a circular area is to the square on a line equal to the quadrant of the circumference, as the area of an equilateral rectangle is to the square on one side.
An "equilateral rectangle" is, by definition, a square. This is an assertion that the area of a circle is the same as that of a square with the same perimeter. This claim results in mathematical contradictions to which Goodwin attempts to respond. For example, right after the above quotation:
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.
In the model circle above, the Archimedean area (accepting Goodwin's values for the circumference and diameter) would be 80. Goodwin's proposed rule leads to an area of 64.
The area found by Goodwin's rule is times the true area of the circle, which, in many accounts of the pi bill, is interpreted as a claim that , but there is no evidence in the bill that Goodwin intended to make such a claim. He repeatedly denied that the area of the circle has anything to do with its diameter.
Notes
- Wilkins, Alasdair (31 January 2012). "The Eccentric Crank Who Tried To Legislate The Value Of Pi". io9. Retrieved 23 May 2019.
- Dudley 1992, p. 195, citing an obituary
- "Did You Know?: Purdue and Indiana's Pi Bill - News - Purdue University". purdue.edu.
-
Goodwin, Edward J. (1894). "Quadrature of the Circle". Queries and Information. American Mathematical Monthly. 1 (7): 246–247. doi:10.2307/2971093. JSTOR 2971093.
Reprinted in: Lennart Berggren, Jonathan Borwein, and Peter Borwein, Pi: A Source Book, 3rd ed. (New York, New York: Springer-Verlag, 2004), page 230.
See also: Purdue Agricultural Economics.Edward J. Goodwin (1895) "(A) The trisection of an angle; (B) Duplication of the cube," American Mathematical Monthly, 2: 337.
- "Clearing the Misunderstanding Re My April Fool's 'Joke'". math.rutgers.edu.
- ^ "Indiana Pi". Archived from the original on 2019-02-21.
- ^ Hallerburg 1975, p. 390.
- Hallerburg 1975, p. 385.
- Waldo, C. A. (1916). "What Might Have Been". Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science: 445–446. Retrieved 24 April 2017.
- Hallerburg 1975, p. 391.
- "THE MATHEMATICAL BILL. Fun-Making In the Senate Yester-day Afternoon--Other Action". Indianapolis News. 13 February 1897. Retrieved 24 April 2017.
- ^ "Text of the bill". Archived from the original on 2013-06-27.
References
- Hallerburg, Arthur E. (1975). "House Bill No. 246 Revisited". Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science. 84: 374–399. Scan in context.
- Hallerberg, Arthur E. (1977). "Indiana's Squared Circle". Mathematics Magazine. 50 (3): 136–140. doi:10.1080/0025570X.1977.11976632. JSTOR 2689499. Hallerberg gives a good account of the bill.
- David Singmaster, in "The legal values of pi" (Mathematical Intelligencer, vol. 7 (1985), pp. 69–72) finds seven different values of pi implied in Goodwin's work.
- Petr Beckmann, A History of π. St. Martin's Press; 1971.
- Dudley, Underwood (1992), "Legislating Pi", Mathematical Cranks, MAA spectrum, Cambridge University Press, pp. 192 sq, ISBN 0-88385-507-0
External links
- Original Text of the House Bill No. 246, Indiana State Legislature, 1897 on Wikisource
- The Straight Dope – Did a state legislature once pass a law saying pi equals 3?
- Snopes.com – Alabama’s Slice of Pi: Did the state legislature of Alabama redefine the value of pi according to Biblical precepts? a related hoax