Indiana Pi Bill
Indiana Pi Bill is the unofficial name of a bill, which was submitted in 1897 to the Parliament of the State of Indiana for decision. With its adoption should - technically untenable - Statement by the physician Edward J. Goodwin for calculating circles and squaring the circle become law, in return Goodwin wanted the state of Indiana allow the free use of his findings.
The document was adopted by the House of Representatives without a dissenting vote, after intervention by the Mathematics Professor Clarence A. Waldo, the Senate adjourned the final adoption indefinitely.
Prehistory
Originally from the ancient Greek mathematics question whether a given circle using only compass and ruler of an area equal area can be constructed for a long time was unanswered. It was only in 1882 Ferdinand von Lindemann proved that such an elementary quadrature of the circle is not possible in principle. No problem was, however, since modern times, the display and any accurate calculation of the circle number. Regardless of the scientific work on the quadrature of the circle and the circle calculating these issues were a popular activity for amateur mathematicians, especially in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Edward Johnston Goodwin of Solitude in Posey County published in 1892 several versions of a work on the quadrature of the circle. About his inspiration he himself wrote that he had learned in 1888 " in a supernatural way, the exact size of the circle ." One of the versions with the title Quadrature of the circle appeared in 1894 under the heading queries and information in the first volume of the journal American Mathematical Monthly. The remark " Published by the request of the author" has the contribution from the ad Goodwins, which was probably taken by the editors of the journal as filler. This article was the basis for the later bill.
The article in the American Mathematical Monthly is formulated unclear and contradictory. The American mathematician David Sing master was from this and from other treatises Goodwins total of nine values read out. Goodwin 's work goes first assume that the square and circle are equal in area, if they have the same scope, a quarter of the circumference that is equal to the square side. The article begins by noting
" A circular area is equal to the square on a line equal to the quadrant of the circumference; [ ... ] "
Taking into account the definition of the circular fixed number as a ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, or (equivalently ) of the area of a circle of radius 1, this approach follows the equation
Which is the value. [Note 1] A later passage, however, indicates that Goodwin favored the value. He determined the ratio of a quarter circle arc to the associated tendon 8-7, the side of the square to the diagonal with 7:10 and 16:5 deduced as the ratio of the circumference to the diameter from. However, the other versions Goodwins leave room for other interpretations.
Legislative procedure
The Parliament consists of Indiana - similar to the Congress of the United States - of two chambers, the House and Senate, both of which must approve a new law. First Chamber, the House of Representatives, the Taylor I. Record, MP from Goodwins our native constituency Posey County, on January 18, 1897, the House Bill No. 246 submitted. Its preamble was:
"A Bill for to act introducing a new mathematical truth and Offered as a contribution to education to be used only by the State of Indiana free of cost by paying any royalties whatever on the same royalty provided it is accepted and ADOPTED by the official action of the Legislature of 1897. "
" A bill that introduces a new mathematical truth and offered as a contribution to education for the sole use by the State of Indiana without expenses through fees on any kind, provided it is adopted and implemented by the official legislative process of the Year 1897. "
The design came from Goodwin, the content was substantially the same as the essay of 1894. There is to be found, moreover, already a statement that Goodwin had made his findings under copyright law.
After the first reading in the House of Representatives the bill was first referred to the Committee on Canals, which saw no jurisdiction and let them pass on the following day to the Committee on Education. This was on February 2, from the recommendation to accept the bill. On February 5, followed by the second and - under suspension of the regular process - even the third reading in Parliament. The House Bill No.. 246 was adopted by 67 votes to 0 and sent to the Senate. A deputy - a former teacher - founded his consent:
"The case is perfectly simple. If we pass this bill Which Establishes a new and correct value for, the author offers to our state without cost the use of his discovery and its free publication in our school text books, while everyone else must pay him a royalty. "
" The case is perfectly simple. If we adopt this law, which introduces a new and correct value for, the author provides our state the free use of his discovery and its free publication in our textbooks, while everyone else must pay him a fee. "
Random guest of the meeting was Clarence Abiathar Waldo, professor of mathematics at Purdue University. After the adoption of it by the House of Representatives, he sat down with the Senate in connection and tried to educate the senators about the content of Goodwin's work.
The Senate dealt with the House Bill No. 246 for the first time on February 11. The design was therefore referred the " abstinence Committee " after the first reading to the Committee on Temperance; whether by design, remains speculation. In the next Senate meeting on 12 February, the Committee recommended to approve the design. It was followed by the second reading, in which the success of Waldo's persuasion was obvious. According to newspapers Senators tore bad jokes about the design, laughed and had spent half an hour in a tidy atmosphere. The official Senate report stated, however, only briefly: " Senator Hubbell requested to postpone further discussion of the template for an indefinite period. The request was granted. " Crucial to the suspension of the procedure was not that Goodwin's theories were held by the senators for wrong, but that" they can not estimate the value of the proposal. He was simply not considered a subject of legislation. "
Reception
The House Bill No.. 246 was first considered by the local press as quite serious bill. The Indianapolis Sentinel wrote on January 20, "The bill [ ... ] is not Intended to be a hoax. [ ... ] Dr. Goodwin, the author, is a mathematician of note. "The mood changed when became aware of the strange legislative procedure and after the adoption of the draft by the House of Representatives national newspapers. Senator Hubbell established his request to postpone the draft, among other things, that he was of the opinion after reading the leading newspapers of the East Coast and from Chicago, the Indiana state legislature had already made enough ridiculous with this procedure.
Meanwhile, the Indiana Pi Bill has become part of the scientific popular literature. Since 1916 work has appeared at irregular intervals on this topic.
Literature and sources
The article essentially follows the presentation of
- David Sing master: The Legal Values of Pi In: The Mathematical Intelligencer 7 (1985 ), pp. 69-72.
In addition, the following sources are cited:
- Underwood Dudley: A law on Pi In: Mathematics between delusion and wit. Fallacies, false evidence and the significance of the number 57 for the American history. Birkhäuser, Basel 1995, ISBN 3-7643-5145-4, pp. 158-166.
- Will E. Edington: House Bill No.. 246 Indiana State Legislature, 1897, In: . Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Sciences 45 (1935 ), pp. 206-210.
- Edward J. Goodwin: Quadrature of the circle. In: The American Mathematical Monthly 1 (1894 ), pp. 246-247.
The work of Goodwin, Edington and singing masters are reprinted in:
- Lennart Berggren, Jonathan M. Borwein, Peter Borwein (eds.): Pi: A Source Book. 3rd edition, Springer, New York 2004, ISBN 0-387-20571-3, pp. 230-239.