• MagicShel@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      99
      ·
      15 hours ago

      They had no idea they couldn’t legislate math and force it to obey. You are crediting them with an overabundance of brain function in relation to what evidence suggests.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        ·
        15 hours ago

        they couldn’t legislate math and force it to obey

        They can legislate education and enforce the curriculum through hiring of staff and purchasing of educational material. That said, this isn’t what was at issue with the legislation.

        You are crediting them with an overabundance of brain function

        In my personal experience as a kid who took Calculus and Physics, we were never really expected to use more precision than 3.14 for grading purposes.

        Unless you’re getting into a professional degree of engineering or foundational mathematics, there’s no notable utility in establishing Pi past the first decimal or three.

        If you get into the actual meat of the article

        In 1894 physician and mathematical dabbler Edward J. Goodwin believed he had found one. He felt so proud of his discovery that, in 1897, he drew up a bill for his home state of Indiana to enshrine what he thought was a mathematical proof into law. In exchange, he would allow the state to use his proof without paying royalties. At least three major red flags should have prompted lawmakers to regard Goodwin with skepticism. Math research has no norm about charging royalties or precedent for legally ratifying theorems, and the supposed proof was nonsense. Among other errors, it claimed that pi, the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter, is 3.2 rather than the well-established 3.14159… Yet, in a bizarre legislative oversight, the Indiana House of Representatives passed the bill in a unanimous vote.

        This is incredibly dated news and largely a commentary on how easily a state legislature will rubber stamp a bill without reading the fine print.

    • Victor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Pretty close though eh, one or two cubits off, ~96% accurate. Just like the rest of the bible, right?

      • Deacon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Assuming we are talking about historical accuracy and not theological accuracy (whatever that is), I’m not sure how low the number is, but it’s certainly less than half of 96%, especially the Old Testament

        • Victor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          we are talking about historical accuracy and not theological accuracy

          I was mostly just making a joke 😅

        • chaogomu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 hours ago

          I can sort of answer this for you. The process of writing the old testament started in 537BCE and the end of the Babylonnian exile.

          This is when Monotheism entered the story as well.

          Anything before Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon is suspicious, and anything before Solomon is fully made up.

          • Deacon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            11 hours ago

            Agreed re: Solomon. My sense is that a lot of it was compiled during Josiah’s reign but my knowledge of the topic is sparse. Are you familiar with the theory that the David story is post hoc propaganda after David Coup’d Saul, and the David & Bathsheba story was fabricated as propaganda to legitimize Solomon after he coup’d David?

            I’m certainly over simplifying.

            • chaogomu@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 hours ago

              I mostly came across it all from studying Cyrus the Great, the King of Kings, and then focused on the exile, or captivity or however you want to call it.

              The Neo-Babylonians started conquering Judah in about 600BCE, they burned Jerusalem, and destroyed Solomon’s Temple in 587.

              The Babylonians were pretty thorough in destroying any religious icons or texts of their new slaves, which included priests and nobles who knew how to read, which was useful to the Babylonians.

              This is how Babylonian creation myths ended up making cameos in the new Hebrew bible written from scraps and invention after Cyrus freed the slaves of Babylon as a kind of last fuck you to the city as he declared himself King of Babylon. (or a way to make said slaves love him)

              • Deacon@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                8 hours ago

                I’m really interested in studying Cyrus the Great, I just got distracted by biblical history as a fixation.

                Random Cyrus-related fact: David Koresh of the Waco Branch Davidians changed his last name from Howell to Koresh which is the biblical name for Cyrus.

                • chaogomu@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 hours ago

                  A good intro to Cyrus the Great might be Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History. The King of Kings series. It’s only, what, 16 hours or so long.

                  The guy can talk, but he also lists his sources, which are also good jumping off points.

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      15 hours ago

      It was the late 1800’s. Dumb shit wasn’t in short supply in the world.

      Problem is, I could also see Trump’s WWE education secretary pushing for this in 2026.

      • orlyowl@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Yes I was fully expecting the details to be “It was a Republican-sponsored bill in 1992” or similar. It’s just too damn believable.

      • CosmicTurtle0 [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 hours ago

        I sort of get NIST doing something like this. I think even NASA rounds pi to 8 digits since that gets them within a diameter of a hydrogen atom.

        The purpose of NIST is not necessarily accuracy but consistency.

  • porcoesphino@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Its an interesting story but a bit misrepresented. Here’s how the post title is misrepresenting the story but it misses lots of the details:

    Here’s the problem that has consumed ancient Greek mathematicians and countless others: given a circle, construct a square with the same area as it using only a compass and straightedge.

    In 1894 physician and mathematical dabbler Edward J. Goodwin believed he had found [a proof]

    he would allow the state to use his proof without paying royalties

    The proof made a mistake that set the value of pi to 3.2

    The article points out it was an odd piece of legislation because royalties aren’t charged for proofs but doesn’t really make clear what this proof was going to be used for. Just:

    they seemed confused about the bill’s contents and played hot potato with it, tossing it to the Committee on Canals, which flung it over to the Committee on Education. They held three formal readings of the bill before voting

  • Lena@gregtech.eu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    15 hours ago

    This kind of people are making laws about technology, something they don’t understand at all, just like π.

      • Lena@gregtech.eu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        I know, but the general attitude of politicians towards science hasn’t changed much, which is why I said “this kind” and not “these”.