# Thread: Can you make a sentence which says: pi?

1. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but that's not the same thing as evidence.

2. Apparently the number pi has no pattern

3. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2004
Posts
13,440

## This is getting quite ridiculous!

From the 'discovery' of pi to the 'discovery' of e is how many years?

From the 'discovery' of e to the 'discovery' of {the next deeply significant transcendental number} is how many years?

From the 'discovery' of .... (you get the idea, I'm sure).

From the discovery of the 'code' for pi to the discovery of where, in {insert your favourite literary/religious/whatever work here}, e is similarly encoded is how many years?

(these example could, no doubt, be multiplied as many times as BAUT members have idle time on their hands).

You're all missing the obvious point ... Van Rijn's invisible elves (with help from the deer) and Nereid's invisible pink fairies have been engaged in a millenia-long malicious campaign to mess with your minds.

4. Established Member
Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
353
Originally Posted by Nereid
You're all missing the obvious point ... Van Rijn's invisible elves (with help from the deer) and Nereid's invisible pink fairies have been engaged in a millenia-long malicious campaign to mess with your minds.
Hmmm.... the first letter of elves is "e" and the first two letters of pink fairies is "pi". Coincidence?

5. Established Member
Join Date
Jul 2004
Posts
651
Originally Posted by Fram
What if you, e.g. extended the system I gave with the last sentence of Much Ado About Nothing? Take a longer text, where the number of words comes first (e.g. a text of 314159 words), and the number of letters is stick to the back of that (2653589). Voila, a much larger precision of Pi, with an equally possible method. Why is your method the correct one?
That method would not prove the use of computers or superhuman abilities. Anyone with a lot of time on his hands could do it. Just write and write until you have nearly the required number of words and letters (being careful not to lose count) and then add a few sentences to reach the exact numbers.

Originally Posted by Fram
As I have shown (as did others), even with your method, finding "significant results" in first lines is easy. Check back my Shakespeare post and explain to me why this is a coincidence (mulitplying the first line of Hamlet with the first line of Macbeth gives me almost exactly 1), and finding e and pi isn't.
Shakespeare wrote 40 plays. Multiplying the first lines of two plays gives 1600 results. It is therefore not very surprising that one of these results will approach an integer to within one part in one thousand.

But actually, you had more latitude than that. You had the choice of using Who's there (two words), Who's there (three words) and Who is there (three words). And instead of the full sentence When shall we three meet again, in thunder lightning or in rain? you used When shall we three meet again?.

6. Originally Posted by Relmuis
That method would not prove the use of computers or superhuman abilities. Anyone with a lot of time on his hands could do it. Just write and write until you have nearly the required number of words and letters (being careful not to lose count) and then add a few sentences to reach the exact numbers.
Circular reasoning. Furthermore, my method was in response to this quote of yours:
If there should be no grammatical sentence in Hebrew which gives a better approach to pi than the sentence which was actually used, then whoever wrote it down used the best available possibility.
Now it looks like you don't claim that they did use the best available possibility, but that you claim that they especially used a system which can only be made by computers or superior brains. This is something completely different, because it changes the claim from 'they encoded pi in it in the best possible way' to 'they encoded pi in it in a cleverly hidden way'.
Both are wrong, but that does not mean that you should just change the theory at will.
Shakespeare wrote 40 plays. Multiplying the first lines of two plays gives 1600 results. It is therefore not very surprising that one of these results will approach an integer to within one part in one thousand.

But actually, you had more latitude than that. You had the choice of using Who's there (two words), Who's there (three words) and Who is there (three words). And instead of the full sentence When shall we three meet again, in thunder lightning or in rain? you used When shall we three meet again?.
So what do you expect, that I tried out every combination of Shakespeare plays until I found something? I tried three of them, the three (IMO) most important ones, and gave the results (Hamlet, Macbeth, Richard III), and then I tried Much ado about nothing for its symbolic value. In that one, I used the last line.
Then you said that wasn't good enough because you used the first book of the OT and the NT (which was traditionally wrong in the second case, and probably wrong in both cases when you consider in which order they were written): to humour you, I used the first play of Shakespeare, and again got a significant result. Your claim that it's not surprising that one of the results would give an integer is a futile attempt to diminish the fact that many randomly chosen sentences give interesting results, even with the system you devised (and which is arbitrary). If you want to claim that other Shakespeare plays on their own or combined would not give similar results, then show it.
As for the latitude: I used the normal text, "Who's there", so no "Who is there". That left me with two choices, and I choose three words.
And I choose in every case to use the first line, which is in my view the most significant base unit of these plays. I used the first line in all my examples, so I stay consistent. Furthermore, you can't have your cake and eat it too: either you think that these numbers were put into Shakespeare's plays on purpose (and then you shouldn't complain about words, lines or sentences), or you don't. If you don't, then your previous post (#60) is wrong, as that was your defense there.

As for my position: I don't think Shakespeare (or anyone else) encoded anything in his plays, I have just used them to show that you can find interesting numbers in the first lines of many texts, even using the numbering scheme and calculation method you provided (or with very minor changes to the calculation method). It seems highly improbable that better results could not be gotten by modifying the system, but I can't be bothered.

7. Established Member
Join Date
Jul 2004
Posts
651
Originally Posted by Fram
This is something completely different, because it changes the claim from 'they encoded pi in it in the best possible way' to 'they encoded pi in it in a cleverly hidden way'.
My claim is: They encoded pi in a way that human beings of the age could not have used.

And I suspect that this was done to suggest that they were gods, to engender, or bolster up, religion.

I don't understand your accusation of circular reasoning, but I have yet to see, either in your post, or anyone else's an example of equal significance.

As for what I said about Shakespeare in post 60, I have been too hasty, and I tentatively retract it. (Which means, it is not backed up by the evidence I have seen, but I may still find, later on, that it backed up by other evidence, whch I have not yet seen.)

8. I don't think anyone here is looking for an example of equal significance. If we can find examples of slightly less significance with hardly any sweat and by basically using your method, then it seems clear to me that it can't be too hard too get equal or better significance when looking for it in a more serious way. But to me, it is clear that pi and e in the Bible is nothing more than numerology in the bad sense, the looking for patterns until you find them and then giving them unneccesary importance. I would be much more impressed if it was done by a simpler method.
What if the Bible (or Genesis) was written in this way: First word 3 letter, 2nd word 1 letter, 3rd word 4 letters, ... No one would find this curious until pi was discovered, and then no one would be able to deny that it was put their on purpose. That would bolster up religion and stifle scepticism.
What we have here now, on the other hand, is just too farfetched and looks to much like a coincidence to be impressive.

9. Originally Posted by 01101001
What if someone hits a hole-in-one on their first attempt?
That means we throw our clubs back into the car and head for the clubhouse or nearest bar and he has to buy rounds for everyone in the group for the rest of the day. If I'm not mistaken, he has to buy a pitcher every 10 minutes until someone passes out then every 15 minutes after that.

An 83 year old woman hit a hole in 1 on the same hole twice in 6 month. This happened at the country club course in Carlsbad,NM
80 something hits hole in one

10. I'm pretty confused in this thrread but just wanted to mention the Gieco Gecko.. He is always saying "Pi and Chips." or is that "Pie"?

11. OP - I shall write a computer program to find a sentence that gives pi to at least 10 decimal places using your coding protocol.

off-topic - the golden ratio (phi) is an interesting number - it's the fraction of the length of a line such that the ratio (phi)/(the line length) is the same as (the line length - phi)/(phi).

What is phi?

clop

12. OK so far so good.

I've checked every single 16-letter-or-under word in the English language and the best single-word solution so far has been "daddy" with a score of 3.141654979.

Now I'll try couplets.

clop

edit: blinking flip - even with an athlon 64 running factored code this is going to take some time - it's checking every single pair of words that exist in the english language, plurals and verb forms and everything - I'll leave it running overnight and see what it's come up with in the morning - just a few short seconds into the task it has already found "abalienate recipients" - not bad for 3.1415918.
Last edited by clop; 2006-Apr-17 at 01:52 PM.

13. Originally Posted by clop
off-topic - the golden ratio (phi) is an interesting number - it's the fraction of the length of a line such that the ratio (phi)/(the line length) is the same as (the line length - phi)/(phi).

What is phi?

clop
Closest I can get for the moment is around 0.618033

edited to add, I them decided to cheat and look it up which gave 0&#183;6180339887, so I guess I didn't do too badly.

14. Originally Posted by clop
awesome, Clop!

15. Originally Posted by hhEb09'1
awesome, Clop!
Thanks.

Right well I've just got up and the computer has finished.

I can therefore state with confidence that the best possible pi you can get from two 16-or-fewer-letter English words is generated from

Protozoologists' firsts.

(meaning the excellent degrees gained by certain biologists)

yielding a value of

3.141592659

which is correct to 7 decimal places.

For the full list of all (2155) solutions that yield pi to at least 5 decimal places please look here

http://www.bigbutton.com.au/~clop/pi5solutions.txt

In case you're interested, the lexicon I'm using lists 159730 English words with 16 letters or fewer.

I don't know if I can be arsed doing 3 words. I'll think about it.

clop

16. Originally Posted by clop
Protozoologists' firsts.
Pi and protozoology! I think the IDers have something here!

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•