Approximations to Pi, E, and sqr 2
Shawn Wilson
approximations to the above constants. I even created an Excel file
to find good ones by brute force. Sadly, the library computers would
not let me save the file in any way so I could email it to myself for
later additions. (if I had a disk I could, but I don't).
I was going to do more in depth comparisons later between quotients
and simply truncating. But I didn't.
So, what works 'well enough' is-
Pi ~ 22/7. It's the classic one, and it's pretty damn close. Of all
the 2-digit by 2 digit possibilities it's the best (and yes, it's 2 by
1...)
E ~ 19/7. It's within 1%, so it's pretty good. It's 6th best among
the 2 by 2's. #1 was an actual 2x2 that I forgot which is about 10x
closer.
Sqr 2 ~ 7/5. I didn't get in depth on this one. But it's close
enough.
Invisible Lurker
> So, for uninteresting reasons I have been interested in simple
> approximations to the above constants. I even created an Excel file
> to find good ones by brute force. Sadly, the library computers would
> not let me save the file in any way so I could email it to myself for
> later additions. (if I had a disk I could, but I don't).
>
> I was going to do more in depth comparisons later between quotients
> and simply truncating. But I didn't.
>
> So, what works 'well enough' is-
>
> Pi ~ 22/7. It's the classic one, and it's pretty damn close. Of all
> the 2-digit by 2 digit possibilities it's the best (and yes, it's 2 by
> 1...)
Try 355/113
--
Invisible Lurker
http://ansaman.posterous.com/
Jeff Wisnia
A favorite fantasy project of mine,
A new value of pi that I could assign.
I would let it be three,
For it's simpler, you see,
Than three point one four one five nine.
Jeff
--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.98*10^14 fathoms per fortnight.
John Hatpin
Hey, that's pretty good. I didn't remember that one.
--
John Hatpin
Hactar
sqrt(10) is about 0.6% bigger than pi.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
Q: What kind of modem did Jimi Hendrix use?
A: A purple Hayes.
Don K
news:D9_1l.8969$dc4....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> Shawn Wilson said:
>> Pi ~ 22/7. It's the classic one, and it's pretty damn close. Of all
>> the 2-digit by 2 digit possibilities it's the best (and yes, it's 2 by
>> 1...)
> Try 355/113
Hmph!
As if 355 or 113 is ever going to cancel with anything!
22 or 7 would always get to cancel something back in the olden days
and then you could do the calculation in your head.
Don
Mark Brader
If you have bc or a similar high-precision calculator available,
try this little program after setting the number of decimal places
as you wish. (In bc, use scale= to do that.)
y = sqrt(2) - 1
a = 6 - 4*sqrt(2)
1/a
for (i = 1; y > 0; ++i) {
t = sqrt (sqrt (1 - y*y*y*y))
y = (1 - t) / (1 + t)
t = 1 + y
a = t*t*t*t*a - (2^(i+i+1))*y*(t+y*y)
1/a
}
--
Mark Brader | "This is a moral that runs at large;
Toronto | Take it. -- You're welcome. -- No extra charge."
m...@vex.net | -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Greg Goss
>So, for uninteresting reasons I have been interested in simple
>approximations to the above constants. I even created an Excel file
>to find good ones by brute force. Sadly, the library computers would
>not let me save the file in any way so I could email it to myself for
>later additions. (if I had a disk I could, but I don't).
>
>I was going to do more in depth comparisons later between quotients
>and simply truncating. But I didn't.
>
>So, what works 'well enough' is-
>
>Pi ~ 22/7. It's the classic one, and it's pretty damn close. Of all
>the 2-digit by 2 digit possibilities it's the best (and yes, it's 2 by
>1...)
First three odd numbers doubled
113355.
split in half
113 355
take the last half and divide by the first half.
355/113
3.1415929 instead of
3.1415926
--
"Recessions catch what the auditors miss." (Galbraith)
Paul Ciszek
irrational numbers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continued_fraction
Read enough of the general article to understand how continued fractions
work, then skip ahead to "Continued fraction expansions of Pi"
--
Please reply to: | "One of the hardest parts of my job is to
pciszek at panix dot com | connect Iraq to the War on Terror."
Autoreply is disabled | -- G. W. Bush, 9/7/2006
Paul Ciszek
In article <mqbm16-...@pc.home>, Hactar <ebenZ...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>sqrt(10) is about 0.6% bigger than pi.
The cube root of 31 is about 0.007% smaller than pi.
Hactar
Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> In article <mqbm16-...@pc.home>, Hactar <ebenZ...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >sqrt(10) is about 0.6% bigger than pi.
>
> The cube root of 31 is about 0.007% smaller than pi.
Interesting. Somehow I see more call for pi^2 than for pi^3. Not that
either's anything at which to sneeze...
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
They that can give up essential liberty to
obtain a little temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety. -- Ben Franklin
xho...@gmail.com
sqrt(g) is pretty close to pi sqrt(meters)/second. That can come in handy
when computing centripetal forces. Or pendulums.
Xho
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked
advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate
this fact.
D.F. Manno
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> There is a shortcut for finding the best rational approximations of
> irrational numbers:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continued_fraction
>
> Read enough of the general article to understand how continued fractions
> work, then skip ahead to "Continued fraction expansions of Pi"
From the cited page: "Most people are familiar with the decimal
representation of real numbers." Yeah, right. Everybody I know is
familiar with an expression that requires two Greek letters and two
instances of the imaginary number i.
Whom did Wiki poll to reach that conclusion, the mathematics department
at MIT?
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
This time _we_ won. This time _you_ get over it.
UaN...@gmail.com
> In article <gia831$qp...@reader1.panix.com>,
> nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>
> > There is a shortcut for finding the best rational approximations of
> > irrational numbers:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continued_fraction
>
> > Read enough of the general article to understand how continued fractions
> > work, then skip ahead to "Continued fraction expansions of Pi"
>
> From the cited page: "Most people are familiar with the decimal
> representation of real numbers." Yeah, right. Everybody I know is
> familiar with an expression that requires two Greek letters and two
> instances of the imaginary number i.
What?
Oh. No. "i" is used there as an index, not as sqrt(-1). They're
saying that most people are used to using decimals to represent real
numbers, 2.34 and .33333.... and things like that, rather than
continued fractions, then they list some advantages to thinking of
numbers in terms of continued fractions rather than decimals.
--
Kevin
John Hatpin
>> Try 355/113
>
>If you have bc or a similar high-precision calculator available,
>try this little program after setting the number of decimal places
>as you wish. (In bc, use scale= to do that.)
>
>y = sqrt(2) - 1
>a = 6 - 4*sqrt(2)
>1/a
>for (i = 1; y > 0; ++i) {
> t = sqrt (sqrt (1 - y*y*y*y))
> y = (1 - t) / (1 + t)
> t = 1 + y
> a = t*t*t*t*a - (2^(i+i+1))*y*(t+y*y)
> 1/a
>}
Is "1/a" shorthand for "a=1/a"? Or "print a"?
I've not seen that notation before.
--
John Hatpin
Mark Brader
>> If you have bc or a similar high-precision calculator available,
>> ...
>> 1/a
>> ...
John Inbc:
> Is "1/a" shorthand for "a=1/a"? Or "print a"?
Because bc is a desk calculator program, its response to a bare
expression is to print it. So that line means "print 1/a".
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "So *you* say." --Toddy Beamish
m...@vex.net | (H.G. Wells, "The Man Who Could Work Miracles")
Mark Brader
Sure, but that was by design, not happenstance.
--
Mark Brader | And the customary practice seems to be "FIRST,
Toronto | let the cat out of the bag; THEN inform you
m...@vex.net | that there's a cat and a bag." --Daniel P.B. Smith
John Hatpin
>Mark Brader:
>>> If you have bc or a similar high-precision calculator available,
>>> try this little program ...
>
>>> ...
>>> 1/a
>>> ...
>
>John Inbc:
>> Is "1/a" shorthand for "a=1/a"? Or "print a"?
>
>Because bc is a desk calculator program, its response to a bare
>expression is to print it. So that line means "print 1/a".
Gotcha - thanks.
--
John Hatpin
xho...@gmail.com
> In article <gia831$qpv$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>
> > There is a shortcut for finding the best rational approximations of
> > irrational numbers:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continued_fraction
> >
> > Read enough of the general article to understand how continued
> > fractions work, then skip ahead to "Continued fraction expansions of
> > Pi"
>
> From the cited page: "Most people are familiar with the decimal
> representation of real numbers." Yeah, right. Everybody I know is
> familiar with an expression that requires two Greek letters and two
> instances of the imaginary number i.
They said most people are familiar with the decimal representation. Not
that most people are familiar of the formal definition of that
representation.
> Whom did Wiki poll to reach that conclusion, the mathematics department
> at MIT?
6th graders.
xho...@gmail.com
> > sqrt(g) is pretty close to pi sqrt(meters)/second.
>
> Sure, but that was by design, not happenstance.
Is it? I think the 1e-7 of a "meridian" is what was by design. Anyway,
I'm pretty sure that it is happenstance that the two competing definitions
were so close to each other. Unless we are into intelligent design.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html
Mark Brader
> > > sqrt(g) is pretty close to pi sqrt(meters)/second.
> > Sure, but that was by design, not happenstance.
> http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html
"Some suggested defining the meter as the length of a pendulum having
a half-period of one second".
> ... I'm pretty sure that it is happenstance that the two
> competing definitions were so close to each other.
No, the pendulum proposal [which would have made sqrt(g) = pi sqrt(m)/s
exactly] came first, then when it was decided to be unsuitable, the
quarter-meridian idea was adopted because it made the unit practically
the same size. If not for that, they could just as well have chosen,
for example, to set the Earth's full circumference at 10^8 meters, making
a meter a bit under 16 inches long.
--
Mark Brader "Elaborative, polysyllabic multipartite agglu-
Toronto tinations can obfuscate and become obstructive
m...@vex.net to comprehensibility." -- Chris Torek
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Joseph Nebus
>[Quoted text rearranged for convenience of responding]
>> ... I'm pretty sure that it is happenstance that the two
>> competing definitions were so close to each other.
>No, the pendulum proposal [which would have made sqrt(g) = pi sqrt(m)/s
>exactly] came first, then when it was decided to be unsuitable, the
>quarter-meridian idea was adopted because it made the unit practically
>the same size. If not for that, they could just as well have chosen,
>for example, to set the Earth's full circumference at 10^8 meters, making
>a meter a bit under 16 inches long.
However, one of the understated goals of the committee which
was designing the Metric System was to have the meter unit be something
pretty close to the already existing aune, which was three pieds long,
and was pretty close to the English yard in length, and was about the
width of a cloth loom.
(Unsurprisingly, there were different aunes, and pieds, in
different regions of France; for that matter Britain didn't settle down
all its regional variants of its units until the Imperial System was
codified in the 19th century. But they were approximately equal.)
One of the arguments against using a pendulum-based meter that
isn't so obvious now is that with the expectation that the metric system
would decimalize time then it'd be awkward to define the unit of length
in terms of a period or half-period of one old-fashioned second. After
the system's implementation there'd be no logical reason to think of
1/86,400th of a day for any other use. As it turned out they probably
could have gotten away with it, but who could guess that at the time?
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Brader
> However, one of the understated goals of the committee which
> was designing the Metric System was to have the meter unit be something
So why did they prefer the aune to the pied? (I can a guess a reason,
but if the real one is known, I'd rather hear it.) And where can I read
about this?
> One of the arguments against using a pendulum-based meter that
> isn't so obvious now is that with the expectation that the metric system
> would decimalize time then it'd be awkward to define the unit of length
> in terms of a period or half-period of one old-fashioned second.
Yowp! Interesting point!
--
Mark Brader "By this time I was feeling guilty. No, correction,
Toronto I was feeling that I *should* feel guilty ..."
m...@vex.net -- Jude Devereaux
Shawn Wilson
> So, for uninteresting reasons I have been interested in simple
> approximations to the above constants. I even created an Excel file
> to find good ones by brute force. Sadly, the library computers would
> not let me save the file in any way so I could email it to myself for
> later additions. (if I had a disk I could, but I don't).
Update.
The original way I did this on the computer was simply try every
single integer combination from 1-99 and sort for the best. When I
originally did this (for E), it was on a calculator and I simply
started with 1*e and incremented until I found a result close to an
integer.
Time out for an Excel lesson- Autofilling is normally done by the
click and drag method, this is SLOW (several minutes) if you are doing
thousands and want to do 65000+ (but get bored and stop at 10,000),
but there IS another way. Fill in the first entry as you want it.
Highlight the column (click the letter above, or row by clicking the
row number). Go to 'Edit', 'Fill' (down in this case).
So. On column of all 'E's', one column counting from 1 up
(denominator). One column multiplying the two, adding .5 and taking
the integer (numerator). And a final column finding the absolute
value of the error. Sort to find the lowest error ('data' > 'sort').
Change the relevant value (E to Piu to Sqr2) to find the others.
65000+ trials for 'free'.
Best approximation to E is...
49171 / 18089. Error is 2.77E-10
For Pi it's
104348 / 33215. Error is 3.32E-10
For Sqrt 2 it's
66922 / 47321. Error is 3.16E-10.
Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)
> (Unsurprisingly, there were different aunes, and pieds, in
> different regions of France; for that matter Britain didn't settle down
> all its regional variants of its units until the Imperial System was
> codified in the 19th century. But they were approximately equal.)
In 1830, actually. Which is why the US is still using the
old-fashioned system.
Mary "And when a pint stopped being a pound the world around."
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
reunite....@gmail.com or mil...@qnet.com
Visit my blog at http://thedigitalknitter.blogspot.com/
Joseph Nebus
>Joseph Nebus writes:
>> However, one of the understated goals of the committee which
>> was designing the Metric System was to have the meter unit be something
>> pretty close to the already existing aune, which was three pieds long...
>So why did they prefer the aune to the pied? (I can a guess a reason,
>but if the real one is known, I'd rather hear it.) And where can I read
>about this?
I don't know if the reason is known, actually. My best
convenient reference on this is Ken Alder's _The Measure Of All
Things_, which is principally about the longitude measurement which
produced the old-fashioned definition of the meter's length. Within
the background and historical pieces the book talks about how France
measured things prior to the metric system, and how the system was,
er, systematized. But the book's main focus is on measuring the
Paris-to-Barcelona distance despite inconveniences like the country
going through the French politics of the 1790s or being at war with
Spain.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Goss
wrote:
>On 20 Dec 2008 23:12:42 -0500, nebusj-@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
>
>> (Unsurprisingly, there were different aunes, and pieds, in
>> different regions of France; for that matter Britain didn't settle down
>> all its regional variants of its units until the Imperial System was
>> codified in the 19th century. But they were approximately equal.)
>
>In 1830, actually. Which is why the US is still using the
>old-fashioned system.
>
>Mary "And when a pint stopped being a pound the world around."
The pint never WAS a pound "the world around". Most of the world used
a pint dramatically bigger (and heavier) than the US version.
Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)
It was in the UK and Commonwealth until 1830. That's an _English_
saying, not American. The Commonwealth was "world around".
Mary "We're conservative here."
Greg Goss
wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 08:52:41 -0700, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
>> "Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)" <reunite....@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 20 Dec 2008 23:12:42 -0500, nebusj-@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
>> >
>> >> (Unsurprisingly, there were different aunes, and pieds, in
>> >> different regions of France; for that matter Britain didn't settle down
>> >> all its regional variants of its units until the Imperial System was
>> >> codified in the 19th century. But they were approximately equal.)
>> >
>> >In 1830, actually. Which is why the US is still using the
>> >old-fashioned system.
>> >
>> >Mary "And when a pint stopped being a pound the world around."
>>
>> The pint never WAS a pound "the world around". Most of the world used
>> a pint dramatically bigger (and heavier) than the US version.
>
>It was in the UK and Commonwealth until 1830. That's an _English_
>saying, not American. The Commonwealth was "world around".
Hmmm. A US pint of water weighs 1.04375 pounds. An Imperial pint
weighs a quarter pound more. The saying is close enough for American
pints, but not even close if you're English. I was raised on Imperial
pints and never heard the saying until reading it on AFCA, a system
dominated by Americans.
"The imperial (UK) gallon is defined as 10 pounds of pure water at 62
degrees Fahrenheit at a barometric pressure of 30 inches of mercury.
The measure must be taken on scales, with the water suspended in the
air and measured with brass weights. In the imperial system, with 8
pints in a gallon, a pint is 20 fluid ounces, so a fluid ounce of
water does weigh one ounce (exactly, under the prescribed
conditions)."
An eighth of ten pounds isn't "a pound".
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_one_gallon_of_water_weigh
John Hatpin
>On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 08:52:41 -0700, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
>> "Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)" <reunite....@gmail.com>
>>
>> The pint never WAS a pound "the world around". Most of the world used
>> a pint dramatically bigger (and heavier) than the US version.
>
>It was in the UK and Commonwealth until 1830. That's an _English_
>saying, not American. The Commonwealth was "world around".
Incidentally, also the meaning of an similar old phrase that's often
misunderstood: "the sun never sets on the British Empire". It wasn't
a hokey claim that the Empire would always prevail, it was simply
stating that it was always daylight somewhere in the Empire.
--
John Hatpin
Charles Bishop
Isn't the phrase British? If so, wouldn't it be logical for the saying to
be true for British pints when the Brits had a large area of the world?
That is, they ignored the data that didn't fit so they could have a cool
rhyming phrase?
I'd vote that it was "true" at one time.
--
charles, ignoring actual facts
Charles Bishop
Reading Mary's post first, I was feeling vindicated, now I'm not. All
within the space of 10 seconds.
The internet means I'm not right as much as I used to be.
--
charles
Snidely
> "Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)" <reunite.gondw...@gmail.com>> >> "Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)" <reunite.gondw...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On 20 Dec 2008 23:12:42 -0500, nebu...@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
>
> >> >> (Unsurprisingly, there were different aunes, and pieds, in
> >> >> different regions of France; for that matter Britain didn't settle down
> >> >> all its regional variants of its units until the Imperial System was
> >> >> codified in the 19th century. But they were approximately equal.)
>
> >> >In 1830, actually. Which is why the US is still using the
> >> >old-fashioned system.
>
> >> >Mary "And when a pint stopped being a pound the world around."
>
> >> The pint never WAS a pound "the world around". Most of the world used
> >> a pint dramatically bigger (and heavier) than the US version.
>
> >It was in the UK and Commonwealth until 1830. That's an _English_
> >saying, not American. The Commonwealth was "world around".
>
> Hmmm. A US pint of water weighs 1.04375 pounds. An Imperial pint
> weighs a quarter pound more. The saying is close enough for American
> pints, but not even close if you're English. I was raised on Imperial
> pints and never heard the saying until reading it on AFCA, a system
> dominated by Americans.
>
Were you raised before 1830?
/dps
Greg Goss
Either way, the English pint is nowhere near a pint. Or did it expand
in the nineteenth century just to be different from the Americans?
Dana Carpender
actually used my knowledge of pi today; had to work out the area of a
pie plate, to see how much it differed from a rectangular baking pan.
Thank you, Mr. Ricci.
Dana "my sixth grade math teacher"
Greg Goss
>>Were you raised before 1830?
>
>Either way, the English pint is nowhere near a pint. Or did it expand
>in the nineteenth century just to be different from the Americans?
nowhere near a pound. Sigh.
Jen
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
>>> Were you raised before 1830?
>> Either way, the English pint is nowhere near a pint. Or did it expand
>> in the nineteenth century just to be different from the Americans?
>
> nowhere near a pound. Sigh.
Round here it's 2 pound 40, minumum. Cheaper at the Co-op, but I don't
shop there.
--
Jen
Hactar
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
> >>Were you raised before 1830?
> >
> >Either way, the English pint is nowhere near a pint. Or did it expand
> >in the nineteenth century just to be different from the Americans?
>
> nowhere near a pound. Sigh.
IIRC the (modern) doggerel in Commonwealth countries is "A pint of water
weighs a pound and a quarter". Not as mellifluous if I do say so
myself. Does it rhyme in Canada?
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
Two atoms are walking along. Suddenly, one
stops. The other says, "What's wrong?" "I've lost
an electron." "Are you sure?" "I'm positive!"
Greg Goss
>In article <6s5666F...@mid.individual.net>,
>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>
>> >>Were you raised before 1830?
>> >
>> >Either way, the English pint is nowhere near a pint. Or did it expand
>> >in the nineteenth century just to be different from the Americans?
>>
>> nowhere near a pound. Sigh.
>
>IIRC the (modern) doggerel in Commonwealth countries is "A pint of water
>weighs a pound and a quarter". Not as mellifluous if I do say so
>myself. Does it rhyme in Canada?
In my corner of the country, water wasn't tied to a weight. We
learned that a certain amount of water weighed a kilogram in grade
eight. Somewhere much later, I learned that a gallon of water weighed
"about" ten pounds. I didn't realize it was a formal standard till I
googled references for that previous message.
Greg Goss
A real pound of sterling silver should be able to buy many gallons of
water or even a gallon or two of wine. I've always been amused that
the British currency and its descendants kept the name when they
decoupled from the underlying precious metal linkage that provided the
name.
Mark Brader
> I would just like to use this thread as an opportunity to state that I
> actually used my knowledge of pi today; had to work out the area of a
Next: how to use your knowledge of e to work out the volume of your e-mail.
--
Mark Brader | "Have you got anything without Spam in it?"
Toronto | "Well, there's Spam, egg, sausage, and Spam.
m...@vex.net | That's not got *much* Spam in it." --Monty Python
Mark Brader
> In my corner of the country, water wasn't tied to a weight. We
> learned that a certain amount of water weighed a kilogram in grade
> eight. Somewhere much later, I learned that a gallon of water weighed
Same here. We speak of fluid ounces informally as ounces all the time,
but it never occurred to me that they might actually weigh an ounce
until, um, probably sometime in the last 5-10 years.
I believe water expands enough on heating that there actually is also
a temperature where a US fluid ounce of water weighs an ounce, somewhere
up near the boiling point.
--
Mark Brader diagnostic: n. Someone who's not sure
Toronto about science and evolution, either.
m...@vex.net --Steve Summit
John Hatpin
>ebenZ...@verizon.net (Hactar) wrote:
>
>>IIRC the (modern) doggerel in Commonwealth countries is "A pint of water
>>weighs a pound and a quarter". Not as mellifluous if I do say so
>>myself. Does it rhyme in Canada?
>
>In my corner of the country, water wasn't tied to a weight. We
>learned that a certain amount of water weighed a kilogram in grade
>eight. Somewhere much later, I learned that a gallon of water weighed
>"about" ten pounds. I didn't realize it was a formal standard till I
>googled references for that previous message.
My ex and kids used to think I was crazy because I used an accurate
kitchen scale to measure quantities if water for bread-making, instead
of the cheap plastic measuring-jug which I didn't trust.
--
John Hatpin
Boron Elgar
<RemoveThi...@gmailAndThisToo.com> wrote:
>
>My ex and kids used to think I was crazy because I used an accurate
>kitchen scale to measure quantities if water for bread-making, instead
>of the cheap plastic measuring-jug which I didn't trust.
I don't measure or weigh anything when I bake bread. I go by the feel
of the dough to get whatever crust and crumb I seek. Honestly, one can
bake bread without measuring cups or scales.
I have found that many of those on the bread groups and blogs do use
scales to weigh everything, and were I running a bakery that required
the exact same results for proofing, temps and timing day after day,
maybe I would. I am considered rather wild for baking this way.
I've dough for a few loaves in the fridge right now. AP, whole wheat,
and rye flours, mixed grains (rye, oats, wheat berries, etc), water,
yeast (that is unusual for me, I usually use sourdough) mashed sweet
potato, some olive oil, orange zest, and toasted pumpkin seeds.
Nothing measured at all.
First time I have tried this combination. I'll let you know how it all
turns out tomorrow.
Boron
Jon M
<RemoveThi...@gmailAndThisToo.com> wrote:
So, how did that work out? And did you manage to recalibrate the
cheap plastic measuring jug?
Jon M
Lee Ayrton
I wonder how long it has been since "two bits" really meant 1/4 of a
silver eight reales coin.
--
"I have never yet encountered a semi-trailer in my bathroom." Jen puts a
bright face on the state of the transit system in AFC-A.
Greg Goss
>On Thu, 1 Jan 2009, Greg Goss wrote:
>
>> Jen <jenha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Greg Goss wrote:
>>>> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Were you raised before 1830?
>>>>> Either way, the English pint is nowhere near a pint. Or did it expand
>>>>> in the nineteenth century just to be different from the Americans?
>>>>
>>>> nowhere near a pound. Sigh.
>>>
>>> Round here it's 2 pound 40, minumum. Cheaper at the Co-op, but I don't
>>> shop there.
>>
>> A real pound of sterling silver should be able to buy many gallons of
>> water or even a gallon or two of wine. I've always been amused that
>> the British currency and its descendants kept the name when they
>> decoupled from the underlying precious metal linkage that provided the
>> name.
>
>I wonder how long it has been since "two bits" really meant 1/4 of a
>silver eight reales coin.
Wasn't the amount of silver in US coinage based on that, and constant
till the early sixties?
Mark Steese
@mid.individual.net:
What should they have done, changed the name to "The Unit of Currency that
was Until Recently a Pound"?
--
Mark Steese
=======================================================================
PS: Your second question, you thought I forgot? I didn't. I never found the
banana slug. - William Least Heat-Moon
Charles Wm. Dimmick
That, or the Austrian Thaler, from which we get "dollar".
The Thaler of Maria Theresia was a world standard for a while.
S. Checker
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in news:6s5ikaF4c3n8U2
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>> A real pound of sterling silver should be able to buy many gallons of
>> water or even a gallon or two of wine. I've always been amused that
>> the British currency and its descendants kept the name when they
>> decoupled from the underlying precious metal linkage that provided the
>> name.
>
> What should they have done, changed the name to "The Unit of Currency that
> was Until Recently a Pound"?
They should have changed the name to something cool and slangy, with a
high "Q" factor. Like "quirl." Or "quin."
--
A sucking chest wound is Nature's way of telling you you've been
in a firefight.
-- Mary S., afca's translator.
John Hatpin
It worked out fine - an easy, fast and accurate method if your scales
happen to be convenient for weighing liquids, which these were (a
detachable plastic dish). As for recalibrating the jug, when I moved
out I bought a better, glass one for the new place. I don't know what
she uses now.
And as for weighing the water precisely for breadmaking, I never got
to the stage of being confident enough to be more relaxed about it,
and weighed water, flour, butter, milk, hashish, whatever else went in
there for the recipe I was doing. (Only kidding about the hash).
One of the pains generally was that some recipes would use imperial
measures, including US cups in some and those I'd recalculate in
metric for consistency. The scale could only show one or other
without pressing some easily-forgotten combination of buttons, so I
left it on kg/g/mg.
--
John Hatpin
Greg Goss
>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in news:6s5ikaF4c3n8U2
>@mid.individual.net:
>
>> Jen <jenha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Greg Goss wrote:
>>>> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Were you raised before 1830?
>>>>> Either way, the English pint is nowhere near a pint. Or did it expand
>>>>> in the nineteenth century just to be different from the Americans?
>>>>
>>>> nowhere near a pound. Sigh.
>>>
>>>Round here it's 2 pound 40, minumum. Cheaper at the Co-op, but I don't
>>>shop there.
>>
>> A real pound of sterling silver should be able to buy many gallons of
>> water or even a gallon or two of wine. I've always been amused that
>> the British currency and its descendants kept the name when they
>> decoupled from the underlying precious metal linkage that provided the
>> name.
>
>What should they have done, changed the name to "The Unit of Currency that
>was Until Recently a Pound"?
Remember, you're talking to a gold bug. If the bits of paper claim to
represent pounds of silver, then that connection should be maintained.
Boron Elgar
Since the net is one of my sources for recipe ideas these days, it is
always fun to see one in grams, the next in ounces and a third in
cups. It is easy to convert, of course, but I do not think in grams,
so need to take a bit of effort to grasp the ratios of ingredients,
whereas in ounces or cups I immediately understand what is going on
with it all.
Yesterday's adventure in bread turned out pretty well. so I urge you
to "trust the force" when you bake breads and not worry about being
super precise.
http://i43.tinypic.com/2qs3ymd.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/1tnh9y.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/21mx1yp.jpg
Boron
Mark Brader
> some recipes would use imperial measures, including US cups ...
Come again?
--
Mark Brader | "A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why
Toronto | my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county
m...@vex.net | and it comes every two and a half minutes" -- John Rowland
John Hatpin
>On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 04:22:15 +0000, John Hatpin
><RemoveThi...@gmailAndThisToo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>And as for weighing the water precisely for breadmaking, I never got
>>to the stage of being confident enough to be more relaxed about it,
>>and weighed water, flour, butter, milk, hashish, whatever else went in
>>there for the recipe I was doing. (Only kidding about the hash).
>>
>>One of the pains generally was that some recipes would use imperial
>>measures, including US cups in some and those I'd recalculate in
>>metric for consistency. The scale could only show one or other
>>without pressing some easily-forgotten combination of buttons, so I
>>left it on kg/g/mg.
>
>Since the net is one of my sources for recipe ideas these days, it is
>always fun to see one in grams, the next in ounces and a third in
>cups. It is easy to convert, of course, but I do not think in grams,
>so need to take a bit of effort to grasp the ratios of ingredients,
>whereas in ounces or cups I immediately understand what is going on
>with it all.
Yet US cups always leave me baffled - I can never remember their
equivalent in Imperial or metric. Ounces I can grudgingly accept, but
in general I prefer to side with science and stick with metric -
life's simpler then, I find.
>Yesterday's adventure in bread turned out pretty well. so I urge you
>to "trust the force" when you bake breads and not worry about being
>super precise.
>
>http://i43.tinypic.com/2qs3ymd.jpg
>http://i43.tinypic.com/1tnh9y.jpg
>http://i43.tinypic.com/21mx1yp.jpg
That looks absolutely delicious! But I don't make bread any more - I
don't have a breadmaker (even though the one I had was a gift to me
from the ex, she's got it) and wouldn't use one if I had, since I
don't eat anything like enough bread to justify the time and trouble.
--
John Hatpin
John Hatpin
>Mark Steese <mark_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in news:6s5ikaF4c3n8U2
>>@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> A real pound of sterling silver should be able to buy many gallons of
>>> water or even a gallon or two of wine. I've always been amused that
>>> the British currency and its descendants kept the name when they
>>> decoupled from the underlying precious metal linkage that provided the
>>> name.
>>
>>What should they have done, changed the name to "The Unit of Currency that
>>was Until Recently a Pound"?
>
>Remember, you're talking to a gold bug. If the bits of paper claim to
>represent pounds of silver, then that connection should be maintained.
There's a very strong allegiance among Britain's less cerebral
population that somehow the "good old British Pound" is something to
be preserved at all costs. This cliche is hauled out by them whenever
joining the European Currency is suggested, which is often, and is as
always fuelled by the tabloid press, especially those with a more
xenophobic outlook.
It's not all hatred of the stinking French, aggressive Germans, boring
Belgians, small-minded Swiss, sex-mad Swedes, lazy Spanish, cowardly
Italians, greasy Greeks, untrustworthy Turks, and all the others (how
do they find time to hate so many people for so many different
reasons?), it's whenever any alteration to the appearance of the pound
comes about - especially, of course, the adoption of the pound coin
over the old pound note. There were nearly riots about that, so
silly for such a useful and welcome measure.
--
John Hatpin
Hactar
I wish they'd do the same thing here. They've introduced four $1
coins[1], but none stuck around. Partly because they were too close in
size to the quarter[2], but mostly (IMO) because they didn't discontinue
the $1 bill at the same time.
And lose the penny. Maybe they'll have to when the dollar drops so much
that $1 of Zn isn't enough to make 100 pennies. Or is Al cheaper in
bulk?
[1] Eisenhower, SBA, Sacajawea, and the current "presidents" series.
Have I forgotten one?
[2] Except for the Eisenhower dollar, which was _huge_.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP http://royalty.mine.nu:81
CANCER: The position of Jupiter says that you should spend the
rest of the week face down in the mud. Try not to shove a roll of
duct tape up your nose when taking your driver's test. -- Weird Al
Mark Brader
> ... it's whenever any alteration to the appearance of the pound
> comes about - especially, of course, the adoption of the pound coin
> over the old pound note. There were nearly riots about that, so
> silly for such a useful and welcome measure.
Yeah, but it meant Sir Isaac Newton lost his commemoration after only
a few years, and how was *that* fair?
I know -- they should've made the coin elliptical, with a picture of
the Sun at one focus!
--
Mark Brader "...out of the dark coffee-stained mugs of
Toronto insane programmers throughout the world..."
m...@vex.net -- Liam Quin
John Hatpin
>John Eight-Ounces:
>> some recipes would use imperial measures, including US cups ...
>
>Come again?
What, repeat my slip-ups?
--
John Hatpin
bill van
John Hatpin <RemoveThi...@gmailAndThisToo.com> wrote:
> It's not all hatred of the stinking French, aggressive Germans, boring
> Belgians, small-minded Swiss, sex-mad Swedes, lazy Spanish, cowardly
> Italians, greasy Greeks, untrustworthy Turks, and all the others (how
> do they find time to hate so many people for so many different
> reasons?),
What about the Dutch then, eh? Why have you left out the Dutch?
--
bill
remove my country for e-mail
John Hatpin
What, those pimping, dope-smoking, tulip-sniffing, canal-dwelling
scum? They're scarcely worthy of mention!
Actually, I don't think there's much animosity here towards the Dutch,
compared to those mentioned.
And what about the Poles? Not long ago, I was in conversation with a
very interesting Polish translator of English (living in Poland), who
was asking me about life in England. He said he knew quite a few
people who'd come here to find work (this has been a very common
phenomenon, hence the plethora of Polish food shops around my
particular neck of the woods), and had visited himself on several
occasions, and made the comment that the British have a solid
reputation in Poland of non-racism. I found this surprising and
heartwarming.
--
John Hatpin
Lee Ayrton
They want you to pick up half the check, of course.
John Hatpin
>On Sun, 4 Jan 2009, bill van wrote:
>
>> In article <q200m4ptkq35i09lj...@4ax.com>,
>> John Hatpin <RemoveThi...@gmailAndThisToo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It's not all hatred of the stinking French, aggressive Germans, boring
>>> Belgians, small-minded Swiss, sex-mad Swedes, lazy Spanish, cowardly
>>> Italians, greasy Greeks, untrustworthy Turks, and all the others (how
>>> do they find time to hate so many people for so many different
>>> reasons?),
>>
>> What about the Dutch then, eh? Why have you left out the Dutch?
>
>They want you to pick up half the check, of course.
No, that's only while they're *going* Dutch. Once they're completely
Dutch, they don't pay a guilder. Cheap bastards.
--
John Hatpin
bill van
John Hatpin <RemoveThi...@gmailAndThisToo.com> wrote:
> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 4 Jan 2009, bill van wrote:
> >
> >> In article <q200m4ptkq35i09lj...@4ax.com>,
> >> John Hatpin <RemoveThi...@gmailAndThisToo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> It's not all hatred of the stinking French, aggressive Germans, boring
> >>> Belgians, small-minded Swiss, sex-mad Swedes, lazy Spanish, cowardly
> >>> Italians, greasy Greeks, untrustworthy Turks, and all the others (how
> >>> do they find time to hate so many people for so many different
> >>> reasons?),
> >>
> >> What about the Dutch then, eh? Why have you left out the Dutch?
> >
> >They want you to pick up half the check, of course.
>
> No, that's only while they're *going* Dutch. Once they're completely
> Dutch, they don't pay a guilder. Cheap bastards.
I'll have you know I've almost singlehandedly been propping up the
economy, paying half price for a whole range of consumer goods this past
week or so.
I used to be completely Dutch, but I'm significantly Canadian now.
Greg Goss
>John Eight-Ounces:
>> some recipes would use imperial measures, including US cups ...
>
>Come again?
I had an extended argument with someone once. I was completely unable
to convince her that there had once been an "Imperial Gallon" that was
larger than the US one. She insisted that the "imperial gallon"
referred to the US gallon, and was named because US commercial
imperialism had spread the gallon to the rest of the world.
(and one-pound pints)
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
...the oldest story in the history of hegemonic powers. The dominant
power concentrates (to its detriment) on the military; the candidate
for successor concentrates on the economy. (Immanuel Wallerstein)
N Jill Marsh
<RemoveThi...@gmailAndThisToo.com> wrote:
>bill van wrote:
>
>>In article <q200m4ptkq35i09lj...@4ax.com>,
>> John Hatpin <RemoveThi...@gmailAndThisToo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It's not all hatred of the stinking French, aggressive Germans, boring
>>> Belgians, small-minded Swiss, sex-mad Swedes, lazy Spanish, cowardly
>>> Italians, greasy Greeks, untrustworthy Turks, and all the others (how
>>> do they find time to hate so many people for so many different
>>> reasons?),
>>
>>What about the Dutch then, eh? Why have you left out the Dutch?
>
>What, those pimping, dope-smoking, tulip-sniffing, canal-dwelling
>scum? They're scarcely worthy of mention!
>
>Actually, I don't think there's much animosity here towards the Dutch,
>compared to those mentioned.
That always amazes me, considering how warlike and generally
unfriendly the Holland people were not all that long ago.
>And what about the Poles? Not long ago, I was in conversation with a
>very interesting Polish translator of English (living in Poland), who
>was asking me about life in England. He said he knew quite a few
>people who'd come here to find work (this has been a very common
>phenomenon, hence the plethora of Polish food shops around my
>particular neck of the woods), and had visited himself on several
>occasions, and made the comment that the British have a solid
>reputation in Poland of non-racism. I found this surprising and
>heartwarming.
I think that reputation is a legacy from WWII, with all those
glamorous Polish aviators and such, fighting the dirty Hun alongside
the Brits.
nj"knew a couple of those"m
--
"Alef is for lion, and
bet is for house..."
Invisible Lurker
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 13:43:10 +0000, John Hatpin
> <RemoveThi...@gmailAndThisToo.com> wrote:
>
>> bill van wrote:
>>
>>> In article <q200m4ptkq35i09lj...@4ax.com>,
>>> John Hatpin <RemoveThi...@gmailAndThisToo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's not all hatred of the stinking French, aggressive Germans,
>>>> boring Belgians, small-minded Swiss, sex-mad Swedes, lazy Spanish,
>>>> cowardly Italians, greasy Greeks, untrustworthy Turks, and all the
>>>> others (how do they find time to hate so many people for so many
>>>> different reasons?),
>>>
>>> What about the Dutch then, eh? Why have you left out the Dutch?
>>
>> What, those pimping, dope-smoking, tulip-sniffing, canal-dwelling
>> scum? They're scarcely worthy of mention!
>>
>> Actually, I don't think there's much animosity here towards the
>> Dutch, compared to those mentioned.
>
> That always amazes me, considering how warlike and generally
> unfriendly the Holland people were not all that long ago.
During the second Anglo-Dutch war in 1667, Sir William
Batten was flabbergasted that the Dutch Navy could
be so many places at once:
"By God, I think the Devil shits Dutchmen!"
I had thought previously that this remark had been
made by Cromwell.
--
Invisible Lurker
http://ansaman.posterous.com/
mike muth
> In article <q200m4ptkq35i09lj3r89mvsfc161ku...@4ax.com>,
> John Hatpin <RemoveThisjfhop...@gmailAndThisToo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Greg Goss wrote:
>
The coins all seem to have gravitated to the casinos, where they are
very useful.
> And lose the penny. Maybe they'll have to when the dollar drops so much
> that $1 of Zn isn't enough to make 100 pennies. Or is Al cheaper in
> bulk?
On US facilities in Europe, only the banks use pennies. Everything
else is rounded to the nearest nickel. If you have pennies, you can
use them to avoid that rounding.
> [1] Eisenhower, SBA, Sacajawea, and the current "presidents" series.
> Have I forgotten one?
If you are including only those in the last 40 or 50 years, no. I
still have a Standing Liberty dollar somewhere. It's right next to my
1876 Reichmark.
--
Mike
"Listen very carefully. Michelle said this only once."
mike muth
<RemoveThisjfhop...@gmailAndThisToo.com> wrote:
<snip>
> It's not all hatred of the stinking French, aggressive Germans, boring
> Belgians, small-minded Swiss, sex-mad Swedes, lazy Spanish, cowardly
> Italians, greasy Greeks, untrustworthy Turks, and all the others (how
> do they find time to hate so many people for so many different
> reasons
It's from having fought all of them at one time or another. Granted,
the fights with the Swiss were actually against Swiss mercenary units
in someone else's army. Come to think of it, I think all those
countries have fought one another, as well. Well, except for the
Greeks who were subjugated by the Turks for a few hundred years.
Oh, and the British fought 3 very bloody sea wars with the Dutch.
Then, there are all those people from former colonies. Everything
good is due to that time of English rule while those undesirable
things are holdovers from before, donchaknow.
--
Mike
"Listen very carefully. I shall say this only once."
Greg Goss
>>And what about the Poles? Not long ago, I was in conversation with a
>>very interesting Polish translator of English (living in Poland), who
>>was asking me about life in England. He said he knew quite a few
>>people who'd come here to find work (this has been a very common
>>phenomenon, hence the plethora of Polish food shops around my
>>particular neck of the woods), and had visited himself on several
>>occasions, and made the comment that the British have a solid
>>reputation in Poland of non-racism. I found this surprising and
>>heartwarming.
>
>I think that reputation is a legacy from WWII, with all those
>glamorous Polish aviators and such, fighting the dirty Hun alongside
>the Brits.
>
>nj"knew a couple of those"m
Also in cold war one. The poles showed that the Soviets could be
stared down. They lost the first battle, but won their corner of that
war.
"Solidarnosc!"
Ultraquix
> In article<6rplmbF...@mid.individual.net>, go...@gossg.org wrote:
>
>> "Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)"<reunite....@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 20 Dec 2008 23:12:42 -0500, nebusj-@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
>>>
>>>> (Unsurprisingly, there were different aunes, and pieds, in
>>>> different regions of France; for that matter Britain didn't settle down
>>>> all its regional variants of its units until the Imperial System was
>>>> codified in the 19th century. But they were approximately equal.)
>>>
>>> In 1830, actually. Which is why the US is still using the
>>> old-fashioned system.
>>>
>>> Mary "And when a pint stopped being a pound the world around."
>>
>> The pint never WAS a pound "the world around". Most of the world used
>> a pint dramatically bigger (and heavier) than the US version.
>
> Isn't the phrase British? If so, wouldn't it be logical for the saying to
> be true for British pints when the Brits had a large area of the world?
> That is, they ignored the data that didn't fit so they could have a cool
> rhyming phrase?
>
> I'd vote that it was "true" at one time.
>
I don't think so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallon
Ultraquix
Greg Goss
>> In article<6rplmbF...@mid.individual.net>, go...@gossg.org wrote:
>>> "Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)"<reunite....@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> The pint never WAS a pound "the world around". Most of the world used
>>> a pint dramatically bigger (and heavier) than the US version.
>>
>> Isn't the phrase British? If so, wouldn't it be logical for the saying to
>> be true for British pints when the Brits had a large area of the world?
>> That is, they ignored the data that didn't fit so they could have a cool
>> rhyming phrase?
>>
>> I'd vote that it was "true" at one time.
>>
>
>I'd vote that it never was "true".
>
>see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/gallon/
pounds.
--
I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.
Nick Spalding
on Tue, 22 May 2012 22:27:53 -0600:
>>On 01/01/2009 06:57 PM, Charles Bishop wrote:
>
>Two and a half years ago?
>
>>> In article<6rplmbF...@mid.individual.net>, go...@gossg.org wrote:
>>>> "Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)"<reunite....@gmail.com>
>
>>>>> Mary "And when a pint stopped being a pound the world around."
>>>>
>>>> The pint never WAS a pound "the world around". Most of the world used
>>>> a pint dramatically bigger (and heavier) than the US version.
>>>
>>> Isn't the phrase British? If so, wouldn't it be logical for the saying to
>>> be true for British pints when the Brits had a large area of the world?
>>> That is, they ignored the data that didn't fit so they could have a cool
>>> rhyming phrase?
>>>
>>> I'd vote that it was "true" at one time.
>>>
>>
>>I'd vote that it never was "true".
>>
>>see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/gallon/
>
>I've been told that the intent was to make eight pints equal to ten
>pounds.
decimal stuff for us.
--
Nick Spalding
doc...@gmail.com
> Sqr 2 ~ 7/5. I didn't get in depth on this one. But it's close
> enough.
If you have a game where area is divided into a square grid, I like 1.5 for diagonal movement. I have a feeling I discussed this here years ago.
doc...@gmail.com
> I've always been amused that
> the British currency and its descendants kept the name when they
> decoupled from the underlying precious metal linkage that provided the
> name.
Your common money names are like that: peso, thaler/dollar. But what's interesting here is that the WEIGHT name "pound" is still in common use.
Greg Goss
the online posting. That's why I answered in email.
--------------------------------------------------------
I thought that this would have been an email echo from an online
discussion, but I don't see it in AFCA.
I'm getting a surprising number of responses to 2009 postings lately.
Is Google groups choking again or something?
It's the word "pound" that amuses me. The French had livres for a
long time after they became worthless. I think that the Quran
specifies a gold weight for the dinar that everyone ignores.