• koorool@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        For each piece of pineapple where nea is height of a cone, p is radius of a cone and le equals 1/3, volume is Pi * nea * p * p * le.

        You understand now why people don’t like pineaaples on their pizzas?

        • Smeagol666@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The only reason people don’t like it is because they haven’t tried it. I was a holdout for the longest time. Fun fact: Hawaiian pizza was invented in Canada by a Greek man.

      • elvith@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And the Lord spake, saying, '‘First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.’

    • agent_flounder@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      So the answer is Jesus. Y’know, because “he’s the answer to everything?”

      So happy to be atheist now …

    • TheOakTree@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      1 year ago

      I get that, it’s like rounding gravitational acceleration (on earth) to 10…

      But why don’t they just use 3, preceded by a “pi is a little more than 3, but for now we’ll round down to 3.”

      • jadero@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        1 year ago

        Especially given that using π=3 is accurate enough for most daily use by ordinary people for ordinary things.

        • F4lcon@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          3 or 5 is equally inaccurate. Engineers usually round it up from however accurate they need it. Scientists usually try to use it to as many digits of significance as they can.

          3 or 5 is equally inaccurate, it doesn’t matter which you use if you think that’s accurate. Most people, engineers and scientists and mathematicians, use computers, but you’ll find they can get inaccurate pretty quickly too.

          Again, 3 or 5 is a meaningless distinction to round an irrational number to. 3 is not an accurate value of pi in any sense and neither even is 3.14.

          • jadero@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            I would draw your attention to the difference between mathematics and reality. Although mathematics is extremely useful in modeling reality, it’s important to remember that while all models are wrong, some are nonetheless useful.

            Thus, a household gardener or storage tank owner or a builder of small boats can choose the appropriate diameter of hose, tank, or pontoon very effectively by rounding PI to 3 but cannot do so when “rounding” to 1 or 5. In these cases, it literally doesn’t matter how many decimal points you use, because the difference between 3 and any arbitrary decimal expansion of PI will be too small to have concrete meaning in actual use.

            Under the philosophy you are promoting, it would be impossible to act in the physical world whenever it throws an irrational number at us.

            I don’t know, but I suspect that there is a whole branch of mathematics, engineering, or philosophy that describes what kinds of simplifications and rounding are acceptable when choosing to act in the physical world.

            The real world in which we act has a fuzziness about it. I think it’s better to embrace it and find ways to work with that than to argue problems that literally have no numerical solution, at least when those arguments would have the effect of making it impossible to act.

            • F4lcon@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Lol, my philosophy is exactly yours. Allow simplification as necessary, because to do otherwise is a pointless uphill battle. Only use as much accuracy as you really need.

              In this case, it doesn’t matter if pi is 3 or 5 or 30. It’s just for teaching purposes. You would need critical thinking to determine how much simplification you can do, which is much better taught by simplifying things differently as you need, rather than just keeping pi as 3 and saying that works everywhere.

              • jadero@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I get it now. I was taking exception to your characterization of 3 and 5 being equally inaccurate in the sense of how close they are to the actual true value, which, of course, can never be known, except in every more accurate approximations.

                In that case, I guess we still have a difference of opinion. I think that using approximations that are closer to their true value are more useful in teaching, despite (and maybe because of) the greater difficulty. If the student is not yet ready for that level of difficulty, then perhaps a different problem should be presented.

                To that end, I actually think that there are several things to teach. That PI is not 3 or 3.14 or any other decimal expansion. That 3 is close enough for most casual encounters outside school. That 3.14 is close enough for most engineering work. That 3.1416 is close enough for most scientific work. That 15 decimal places is close enough for rocket scientists. That 37 decimal places are enough to calculate the circumference of the universe to within the diameter of a hydrogen atom. (https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/news/2016/3/16/how-many-decimals-of-pi-do-we-really-need/ is my reference for the last two items. The others are just wild-ass guesses.)

                • F4lcon@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  What I mean is, if you’re using 3, you’re approximating, heavily. If you do anything critical using that value, it’s as bad as using 5 really, imo. Is it really the case that 3 can be used casually? Like in what, workmanship, crafting or something else?

                  Personally, I would say that pi should be presented as 3.14 and calculators should be used, there’s no reason to fear less than elegant numbers xD. And no, that’s not close enough for most engineering work, as an engineer we don’t usually approximate that much despite the memes, since you have to reduce the margin of error as much as practical. You generally don’t even approximate, just leave it as pi the symbol for the most part since in the end you won’t calculate it manually. The errors stack up the more you use the value. Eg, multiply an inaccurate value of pi by pi and the error you get is exponential.

                  That aside, I think 5 is more elegant than 3 so if youre approximating to avoid the cumbersome numbers why not go for elegance instead of accuracy? xD

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The only thing I can think of is that they wanted the math to be easy, and somehow thought 3 was easier than 5. But, that’s hard to believe because the only other numbers used were all 10s, so it’s 3*10*10*10 vs. 5*10*10*10.

    • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Sure, until you actually need the correct result of the circumference of a circle and think pi is 5.

      Misinformation is education. Welcome to the future.

      • aesopjah@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Like, at least make it 3 instead of 5. Still allows for mental math

        • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s fucking pi. It’s a constant that will never change in their entire lives, just teach reality the first time instead of making up a thousand little lies to correct later.

          • aesopjah@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Gotta cut it off at some point though, right? How many decimals? 10, 4, 1, or 0?

            Plus, this is a test not the knowledge delivery. Some thing as ‘assume a flat plane with no friction’ for a physics test. Yeah it’s not 100% accurate but the test taker can be evaluated on the methods

            • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Everything is knowledge delivery if the knowledge is correct. And we already have the decimal cut off, it’s 3.14. You can even find a dozen scientific papers as to why this is specific enough for almost every purpose.

              Edit: Also, when it’s mirrored it spells PIE.

              • Spzi@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                And we already have the decimal cut off, it’s 3.14. You can even find a dozen scientific papers as to why this is specific enough for almost every purpose.

                But that’s exactly a little lie, in contrast to reality. The truth is, Pi is an irrational number. This means every decimal representation is necessarily wrong, or a “lie”, if you insist. Wether someone deems it accurate “enough” for “almost every purpose” is their opinion. It’s still not the number Pi. If you want to write Pi down in decimal representation, you need to use infinitely many digits. If you use less, you did not write down Pi. Anyone suggesting something else is feeding you a little lie.

                The intent of this paragraph was not to encourage you to always fully spell out Pi, but to lead the idea ad absurdum. It should be apparent that there are situations when it is practical, even necessary, to simplify reality to something we can handle.

                Science education is full of these situations.

                For example, when learning about the composition of atoms, you might first hear about them in the context of Chemistry. And use the Nuclear shell model, which imagines electrons to exist in tidy, circular orbits around the nucleus. Later your teacher might hint at another representation, Atomic orbitals. Later still you might learn about quantum mechanics and describe everything in Wave functions.

                Which is reality? While they live in a spectrum from ‘easier to understand’ to ‘more accurate’; Neither! They all are models. They all are human creations. Made by humans, for humans, to talk about reality. They are tools of communication tailored to specific use cases and audiences. Because reality is infinitely complex, but our understanding is always limited.

                If you think about it, you will find endless examples like these in your journey how you learned science. We are unable to experience reality as it is, and need to wrap it in language and models. We are also curious at very young ages, and need models and language which is appropriate to our still developing individual capability. We need to embrace these little lies to stand on shoulders of giants.

                5 Lies You Were Told in School (SciShow)

        • hansl@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Or just use a cube and say one side is 5 long. Does it really have to be a cylinder?

      • F4lcon@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        So? You think you’ll get the correct result by using 3? Or 3.14? Not quite. You can only get infinitesimally close to the correct result by increasing digits of pi.

        And of course, if you really need that circumference for something critical, guess what? You use the things people developed for this very problem, software packages, and so on. And of course, you get it double checked, triple checked.

        If it’s assume pi is 5, it’s not misinformation. If they point guns at kids and say it’s 5 for real, then yes.

        • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Or you could just use 3.14 which is infinitesimally more correct than 5, not lie about the number and aim for correctness and accuracy so people learn how to do things right the first time.

          If you can’t handle a few decimal points then you aren’t ready for pi, go back to third grade.

          • F4lcon@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I don’t think you understand what infinitesimally means! It means the opposite- you want to use ‘infinitely’ there. Because you’re kinda agreeing with me otherwise xD

            Now, not being a condescending asshole, I really take issue with you calling an approximation a ‘lie’. And honestly, who’s multiplying decimal points mentally? That’s difficult. Use a calculator. Want to avoid calculators for an exam? Simplify! That’s why they use 5 and not 3.14.

            • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              infinitesimally

              I was typing in a rush and mistyped, but you understand what I meant.

              Simplify! That’s why they use 5 and not 3.14.

              That’s a bullshit excuse. 3 could be argued but 5 is straight disinformation. And I do multiplication of decimals in my head because I was taught how to in school, that’s how far behind the US system is.

              • F4lcon@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s impressive. Mental math isn’t one of my talents to be honest. And let’s agree to disagree about the disinformation.

                • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  It’s a skill like any other, you have to be taught it to learn it, and you need practice to get better.

      • F4lcon@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Of course. They already use it like it’s some kind of hack. Make it official. Teach them the ins and outs of Wolfram. Better than memorising and regurgitating information, no?

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    Your conditions are nonsensical, therefore the answer must also be nonsensical.

    V = A sculpture of Tom Selleck made out of scalloped potatoes.