Comment from Nathan Tenny 2006 Jul 21

Send comments about this site to

Nathan Tenny sent in this comment.

My (Larry's) replies appear like this.

From: Nathan Tenny
Date: 2006 Jul 21
Subj: 3.1464466

I'm assuming that the "true value of pi" story is serious, not some sort of highly oblique allusion to Ramanujan or something. I may be wrong.

The proofs that
(1) pi is transcendental and
(b) all transcendental numbers are noneuclidean,
while ironclad, aren't particularly easy. The Wikipedia entry on "Proof of impossibility" gives page numbers in Hardy & Wright's number-theory textbook---I had a course out of that book when I was a junior, but I screwed off pretty badly in that class, so I don't know if I should have understood that part or not. I doubt if the proof can be framed in terms that make it accessible to the typical squaring-the-circle kook.

I wrote back to say that, as far as I know, the Reddy book is legit, albeit wrong; not an allusion to Ramanujan. I didn't make Reddy up. Nathan wrote back:
I think these guys usually try to flood anyone they see as an authority. Underwood Dudley's _Mathematical Cranks_ is supposed to be a pretty interesting examination of the genus; I've never read it. You might take your contact with one as a sign that it's time to read it. Or not.