hi.... i'm currently working on Analog Devices Dsp processor ADAU 1701.. Sigma studio is the software we are now on,in that i have some queries in the way they calculate filter coefficient.
- main specification i needed to design a filter 1)Type[LPF,HPF, etc] 2)frequency 3)Q 4)Gain
eg: I want a 2nd order LPF with Frequency= 1000 Q=0.5 Gain=1
The given below derivation is the one which i got from sigma studio help window.
After compiling we'll get coefficients a1,a2,b0,b1,b2 in hex format in CAPTURE WINDOW of software. i did manual calculation using the expression provided above and compare with that of coeffients of software, but it differs. Please help me to get detail calculation with the specification i given above.
We know ω0 = 2*pi*f0/Fs -what is the value of pi(180 0r 3.14) -ω0 is the angular representation of requency i think it will be 180 -then in above value of alpha will be zero always. -it means Q doesnt have any importantce in filter design -please suggest a good book which describe in detail about filter design
rammya.tv wrote: > hi.... > i'm currently working on Analog Devices Dsp processor ADAU 1701.. > Sigma studio is the software we are now on,in that i have some queries in > the way they calculate filter coefficient.
> - main specification i needed to design a filter > 1)Type[LPF,HPF, etc] > 2)frequency > 3)Q > 4)Gain
> eg: > I want a 2nd order LPF with > Frequency= 1000 > Q=0.5 > Gain=1
> The given below derivation is the one which i got from sigma studio help > window.
I can't see your omega unless I switch to unicode. It seems gauche, but it is the custom here to use 'w' instead.
> After compiling we'll get coefficients a1,a2,b0,b1,b2 in hex format in > CAPTURE WINDOW of software. > i did manual calculation using the expression provided above and compare > with that of coeffients of software, but it differs. > Please help me to get detail calculation with the specification i given > above.
> We know ω0 = 2*pi*f0/Fs > -what is the value of pi(180 0r 3.14) > -ω0 is the angular representation of requency i think it will be 180 > -then in above value of alpha will be zero always. > -it means Q doesnt have any importantce in filter design > -please suggest a good book which describe in detail about filter design
It will be 180 what? All angles above are in radians. 'w' (or ω) is for radians/second. For cycles/second (Hz), it's 'f'. One cycle is 2*pi radians. That pi radians equal 180 degrees doesn't make pi (Π) equal to 180. There's no magic that can make it so.
Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> hi.... > i'm currently working on Analog Devices Dsp processor ADAU 1701.. > Sigma studio is the software we are now on,in that i have some queries in > the way they calculate filter coefficient.
> - main specification i needed to design a filter > 1)Type[LPF,HPF, etc] > 2)frequency > 3)Q > 4)Gain
> eg: > I want a 2nd order LPF with > Frequency= 1000 > Q=0.5 > Gain=1
> The given below derivation is the one which i got from sigma studio help > window.
> After compiling we'll get coefficients a1,a2,b0,b1,b2 in hex format in > CAPTURE WINDOW of software. > i did manual calculation using the expression provided above and compare > with that of coeffients of software, but it differs. > Please help me to get detail calculation with the specification i given > above.
> We know ω0 = 2*pi*f0/Fs > -what is the value of pi(180 0r 3.14)
the latter.
> -ω0 is the angular representation of frequency i think it will be 180
w0 is unitless but would be "radians per sample" and is always less than pi.
> -then in above value of alpha will be zero always. > -it means Q doesnt have any importantce in filter design
GIGO
> -please suggest a good book which describe in detail about filter design
it looks like you've been to the cookbook. there *is* actually sufficient detail in the "FYI" at the bottom to show how all the coefs were designed. but look for Zoelzer's book, i guess. the formulae have been used over and over and i'm confident are correct for how the parameters are defined in the cookbook. try reading it carefully and not making any funky assumptions.
rammya.tv hi.... i'm currently working on Analog Devices Dsp processor ADAU 1701.. Sigma studio is the software we are now on,in that i have some queries in the way they calculate filter coefficient.
- main specification i needed to design a filter 1)Type[LPF,HPF, etc] 2)frequency 3)Q 4)Gain
eg: I want a 2nd order LPF with Frequency= 1000 Q=0.5 Gain=1
The given below derivation is the one which i got from sigma studio help window.
I can't see your omega unless I switch to unicode. It seems gauche, but it is the custom here to use 'w' instead.
After compiling we'll get coefficients a1,a2,b0,b1,b2 in hex format in CAPTURE WINDOW of software. i did manual calculation using the expression provided above and compare with that of coeffients of software, but it differs. Please help me to get detail calculation with the specification i given above.
We know w0 = 2*pi*f0/Fs -what is the value of pi(180 0r 3.14) -w0 is the angular representation of requency i think it will be 180 -then in above value of alpha will be zero always. -it means Q doesnt have any importantce in filter design -please suggest a good book which describe in detail about filter design
It will be 180 what? All angles above are in radians. 'w' (or ω) is for radians/second. For cycles/second (Hz), it's 'f'. One cycle is 2*pi radians. That pi radians equal 180 degrees doesn't make pi (Π) equal to 180. There's no magic that can make it so.
Jerry --
>Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. >¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
hi jerry
thanx for ur response still i didnt get what u mean?? first off all i'm new to this field. i made another mistake what i meant is in the expresion w0=2*pi*f0 value of pi 1s 180 or 3.14. with regards rammya
> thanx for ur response still > i didnt get what u mean?? > first off all i'm new to this field. > i made another mistake > what i meant is in the expresion w0=2*pi*f0 > value of pi 1s 180 or 3.14. > with regards
According to one passage in the Bible, pi is three. Various legislators at various times introduced ordinances to set the value of pi at some convenient rational fraction. No ordinance can affect the value of a physical constant. Pi remains 3.1415926535897932384626433832795... despite their efforts. 355/113 comes close.
Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
On Feb 10, 8:39 am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> According to one passage in the Bible, pi is three. Various legislators > at various times introduced ordinances to set the value of pi at some > convenient rational fraction. No ordinance can affect the value of a > physical constant.
Jerry, pi is a mathematical constant. i wouldn't call it a physical constant, in the sense of the fine-structure constant or the proton- electron mass ratio or any of the other 26 or so dimensionless fundamental physical constants.
> Pi remains [approx] 3.1415926535897932384626433832795... > despite their efforts.
i dunno. them Republicans are challenging a lot of reality. maybe someday they'll win.
Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> writes: > [...] > According to one passage in the Bible, pi is three.
Where is that? -- Randy Yates % "My Shangri-la has gone away, fading like Digital Signal Labs % the Beatles on 'Hey Jude'" mailto://ya...@ieee.org % http://www.digitalsignallabs.com % 'Shangri-La', *A New World Record*, ELO
robert bristow-johnson wrote: > On Feb 10, 8:39 am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote: >> According to one passage in the Bible, pi is three. Various legislators >> at various times introduced ordinances to set the value of pi at some >> convenient rational fraction. No ordinance can affect the value of a >> physical constant.
> Jerry, pi is a mathematical constant.
Right. My bad.
> i wouldn't call it a physical > constant, in the sense of the fine-structure constant or the proton- > electron mass ratio or any of the other 26 or so dimensionless > fundamental physical constants.
>> Pi remains [approx] 3.1415926535897932384626433832795... >> despite their efforts.
> i dunno. them Republicans are challenging a lot of reality. maybe > someday they'll win.
Bob, you're real good at making up horror stories.
Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Randy Yates wrote: > Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> writes: >> [...] >> According to one passage in the Bible, pi is three.
> Where is that?
In the old testament, a the descriptions of a vessel in the Temple.
look look look ...
1 Kings 4:23. "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and its height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."
Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:46:32 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote: > Randy Yates wrote: >> Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> writes: >>> [...] >>> According to one passage in the Bible, pi is three.
>> Where is that?
> In the old testament, a the descriptions of a vessel in the Temple.
> look look look ...
> 1 Kings 4:23. "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to > the other: it was round all about, and its height was five cubits: and a > line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:39:24 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote: > rammya.tv wrote:
> ...
> > thanx for ur response still > > i didnt get what u mean?? > > first off all i'm new to this field. > > i made another mistake > > what i meant is in the expresion w0=2*pi*f0 value of pi 1s 180 or > > 3.14. > > with regards
> According to one passage in the Bible, pi is three. Various legislators > at various times introduced ordinances to set the value of pi at some > convenient rational fraction. No ordinance can affect the value of a > physical constant. Pi remains 3.1415926535897932384626433832795... > despite their efforts. 355/113 comes close.
At least one of those efforts that I know of makes perfect sense. The value of lumber coming from state forests in Oregon is estimated using an algorithm that assumes 3 for pi -- but everyone knows that, it's just an estimate anyway, and they're all singing off the same sheet of music. So it all comes out right in the end, more or less, you don't have disagreements about what the lumber company should pay the state, and no one has to grab a calculator to figure out the board feet in a five foot diameter, forty foot long log.
I suspect many other reports about "dumb legislators dictating the value of pi" come from similar -- and similarly sensible -- laws.
Tim Wescott wrote: > On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:46:32 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:
>> Randy Yates wrote: >>> Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> writes: >>>> [...] >>>> According to one passage in the Bible, pi is three. >>> Where is that? >> In the old testament, a the descriptions of a vessel in the Temple.
>> look look look ...
>> 1 Kings 4:23. "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to >> the other: it was round all about, and its height was five cubits: and a >> line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."
>> Jerry
> Clearly written by a fuzzy studies major.
Is the Bible the word of God, or is it not?
Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:11:35 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote: > Tim Wescott wrote: >> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:46:32 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:
>>> Randy Yates wrote: >>>> Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> writes: >>>>> [...] >>>>> According to one passage in the Bible, pi is three. >>>> Where is that? >>> In the old testament, a the descriptions of a vessel in the Temple.
>>> look look look ...
>>> 1 Kings 4:23. "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim >>> to the other: it was round all about, and its height was five cubits: >>> and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."
>>> Jerry
>> Clearly written by a fuzzy studies major.
> Is the Bible the word of God, or is it not?
Uh oh. I'm in trouble now.
I certainly don't believe that it is the One True Word, nor even that it was dictated by God to the scribes that first wrote it down. Even if it was so dictated, those scribes would still have only written down what they understood, and so have gotten things wrong. Regardless of how much divine inspiration was involved, the Bible is the product of human minds and centuries of temple politics and is unavoidably distanced from what God -- should he exist -- really meant.
Given an old rock with a fossil in it, and the Bible, I will take the rock as a truer message from God, and make decisions about the age of the universe and my own origins accordingly. Ditto with biblical passages about the ratio of circumference and diameter vs. the messages that come from doing mathematical proofs.
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:29:15 -0800, robert bristow-johnson wrote: > On Feb 10, 8:39 am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> According to one passage in the Bible, pi is three. Various legislators >> at various times introduced ordinances to set the value of pi at some >> convenient rational fraction. No ordinance can affect the value of a >> physical constant.
> Jerry, pi is a mathematical constant. i wouldn't call it a physical > constant, in the sense of the fine-structure constant or the proton- > electron mass ratio or any of the other 26 or so dimensionless > fundamental physical constants.
Knowing that real-world circular objects still approximate the ideal mathematical relationship is still physics, however.
> Tim Wescott wrote: >> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:46:32 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:
>>> Randy Yates wrote: >>>> Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> writes: >>>>> [...] >>>>> According to one passage in the Bible, pi is three. >>>> Where is that? >>> In the old testament, a the descriptions of a vessel in the Temple.
>>> look look look ...
>>> 1 Kings 4:23. "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to >>> the other: it was round all about, and its height was five cubits: and a >>> line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."
Eric Jacobsen wrote: > On 2/10/2010 10:11 PM, Jerry Avins wrote: >> Tim Wescott wrote: >>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:46:32 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:
>>>> Randy Yates wrote: >>>>> Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> writes: >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> According to one passage in the Bible, pi is three. >>>>> Where is that? >>>> In the old testament, a the descriptions of a vessel in the Temple.
>>>> look look look ...
>>>> 1 Kings 4:23. "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one >>>> brim to >>>> the other: it was round all about, and its height was five cubits: >>>> and a >>>> line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."
Trying to reconcile the world and the Book is a lot of work, especially as there's more than one version of the Book to reconcile to. How should Genesis 1:27 (So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.)* be squared with Genesis 2:18 (Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is just right for him.")* followed by talk about a rib? Fortunately for me, I don't have to. I just don't care.
Jerry Avins wrote: >Tim Wescott wrote: >> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:46:32 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:
>>> Randy Yates wrote: >>>> Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> writes: >>>>> [...] >>>>> According to one passage in the Bible, pi is three. >>>> Where is that? >>> In the old testament, a the descriptions of a vessel in the Temple.
>>> look look look ...
>>> 1 Kings 4:23.
No, 1 Kings 7:23.
>>> "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to >>> the other: it was round all about, and its height was five cubits: and a >>> line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."
>>> Jerry
One of the first few hits when I googled "ten cubits from the one brim" (no quotes):
Short version: the measurements are not redundant. One is an interior measurement, and one is an exterior measurement. That said, there isn't a "standard cubit" sitting in Jerusalem or something. ;)
>> Clearly written by a fuzzy studies major.
>Is the Bible the word of God, or is it not?
Inspired, but not dictated word-for-word. Nevertheless, error-free in the original languages. No, I don't have time to answer every one of these, nor am I likely to know the answer to every question you can raise, but Google is your friend. The basic rule for interpretation (predicated on believing the Bible) is: if ones encounters an apparent contradiction, his/her interpretation is wrong. Of course, if you don't believe it, you can interpret it however you want and find all sorts of problems.
On Feb 10, 7:46 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> Randy Yates wrote: > > Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> writes: > >> [...] > >> According to one passage in the Bible, pi is three.
> > Where is that?
> In the old testament, a the descriptions of a vessel in the Temple.
> look look look ...
> 1 Kings 4:23. "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to > the other: it was round all about, and its height was five cubits: and a > line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."
That's fantastic. The actual reference is 1 Kings 7:23 though:
Michael Plante wrote: > Jerry Avins wrote: >> Tim Wescott wrote: >>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:46:32 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:
>>>> Randy Yates wrote: >>>>> Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> writes: >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> According to one passage in the Bible, pi is three. >>>>> Where is that? >>>> In the old testament, a the descriptions of a vessel in the Temple.
>>>> look look look ...
>>>> 1 Kings 4:23.
> No, 1 Kings 7:23.
>>>> "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to >>>> the other: it was round all about, and its height was five cubits: and > a >>>> line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."
>>>> Jerry
> One of the first few hits when I googled "ten cubits from the one brim" (no > quotes):
> Short version: the measurements are not redundant. One is an interior > measurement, and one is an exterior measurement. That said, there isn't a > "standard cubit" sitting in Jerusalem or something. ;)
>>> Clearly written by a fuzzy studies major. >> Is the Bible the word of God, or is it not?
> Inspired, but not dictated word-for-word. Nevertheless, error-free in the > original languages. No, I don't have time to answer every one of these, > nor am I likely to know the answer to every question you can raise, but > Google is your friend. The basic rule for interpretation (predicated on > believing the Bible) is: if ones encounters an apparent contradiction, > his/her interpretation is wrong. Of course, if you don't believe it, you > can interpret it however you want and find all sorts of problems.
If you don't believe it, they aren't problems. There is nothing quite so inherently self contradictory as a proselytizing atheist.
Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
emeb wrote: > On Feb 10, 7:46 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote: >> Randy Yates wrote: >>> Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> writes: >>>> [...] >>>> According to one passage in the Bible, pi is three. >>> Where is that? >> In the old testament, a the descriptions of a vessel in the Temple.
>> look look look ...
>> 1 Kings 4:23. "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to >> the other: it was round all about, and its height was five cubits: and a >> line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."
> That's fantastic. The actual reference is 1 Kings 7:23 though:
Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> Eric Jacobsen wrote: >> On 2/10/2010 10:11 PM, Jerry Avins wrote: >>> Tim Wescott wrote: >>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:46:32 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:
>>>>> Randy Yates wrote: >>>>>> Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> writes: >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> According to one passage in the Bible, pi is three. >>>>>> Where is that? >>>>> In the old testament, a the descriptions of a vessel in the Temple.
>>>>> look look look ...
>>>>> 1 Kings 4:23. "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one >>>>> brim to >>>>> the other: it was round all about, and its height was five cubits: >>>>> and a >>>>> line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."
> Trying to reconcile the world and the Book is a lot of work, especially > as there's more than one version of the Book to reconcile to. How should > Genesis 1:27 (So God created human beings in his own image. In the image > of God he created them; male and female he created them.)* be squared > with Genesis 2:18 (Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man > to be alone. I will make a helper who is just right for him.")* followed > by talk about a rib? Fortunately for me, I don't have to. I just don't > care.
> Jerry Avins wrote: >> Tim Wescott wrote: >>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:46:32 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:
>>>> Randy Yates wrote: >>>>> Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org> writes: >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> According to one passage in the Bible, pi is three. >>>>> Where is that? >>>> In the old testament, a the descriptions of a vessel in the Temple.
>>>> look look look ...
>>>> 1 Kings 4:23.
> No, 1 Kings 7:23.
>>>> "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to >>>> the other: it was round all about, and its height was five cubits: and > a >>>> line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."
>>>> Jerry
> One of the first few hits when I googled "ten cubits from the one brim" (no > quotes):
> Short version: the measurements are not redundant. One is an interior > measurement, and one is an exterior measurement. That said, there isn't a > "standard cubit" sitting in Jerusalem or something. ;)
>>> Clearly written by a fuzzy studies major. >> Is the Bible the word of God, or is it not?
> Inspired, but not dictated word-for-word. Nevertheless, error-free in the > original languages. No, I don't have time to answer every one of these, > nor am I likely to know the answer to every question you can raise, but > Google is your friend. The basic rule for interpretation (predicated on > believing the Bible) is: if ones encounters an apparent contradiction, > his/her interpretation is wrong. Of course, if you don't believe it, you > can interpret it however you want and find all sorts of problems.
One could put that stipulation, i.e., "if one encounters an apparent contradiction, his/her interpretation is wrong", about anything written, ever, by anyone, if one wishes to spin it that way. I can make up a religion and put that caveat in there and it instantly becomes irrefutable, so it's an understandable strategy for believers.
On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 22:36:08 -0600, rammya.tv wrote: > hi.... > i'm currently working on Analog Devices Dsp processor ADAU 1701.. > Sigma studio is the software we are now on,in that i have some queries > in the way they calculate filter coefficient.
> - main specification i needed to design a filter 1)Type[LPF,HPF, etc] > 2)frequency > 3)Q > 4)Gain
> eg: > I want a 2nd order LPF with > Frequency= 1000 > Q=0.5 > Gain=1
> The given below derivation is the one which i got from sigma studio help > window.
> After compiling we'll get coefficients a1,a2,b0,b1,b2 in hex format in > CAPTURE WINDOW of software. > i did manual calculation using the expression provided above and compare > with that of coeffients of software, but it differs. Please help me to > get detail calculation with the specification i given above.
> We know ω0 = 2*pi*f0/Fs > -what is the value of pi(180 0r 3.14) -ω0 is the angular representation > of requency i think it will be 180 -then in above value of alpha will be > zero always. -it means Q doesnt have any importantce in filter design > -please suggest a good book which describe in detail about filter design
> with regards > rammya
Lots of responses.
It's not clear that your problem is in constructing the filter or in executing it. A filter whose impulse response is exactly two cycles of a 2kHz sine wave will have a peak just a hair below 2kHz and will have zeros at 0Hz, 1kHz, 3kHz, etc.
Try that -- if you can't get it working in your filter execution code, then you can stop trying to figure out the problem in your filter design code.
Jerry Avins wrote: > Randy Yates wrote: >> Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> writes: >>> [...] >>> According to one passage in the Bible, pi is three.
>> Where is that?
> In the old testament, a the descriptions of a vessel in the Temple.
> look look look ...
> 1 Kings 4:23. "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to > the other: it was round all about, and its height was five cubits: and a > line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."
Eric wrote: >On 2/11/2010 1:41 PM, Michael Plante wrote: >> The basic rule for interpretation (predicated on >> believing the Bible) is: if ones encounters an apparent contradiction, >> his/her interpretation is wrong. Of course, if you don't believe it, you >> can interpret it however you want and find all sorts of problems.
>One could put that stipulation, i.e., "if one encounters an apparent >contradiction, his/her interpretation is wrong", about anything written, >ever, by anyone, if one wishes to spin it that way. I can make up a >religion and put that caveat in there and it instantly becomes >irrefutable, so it's an understandable strategy for believers.
Agreed. It's merely a claim of self-consistency, something many careful people would claim about their own various viewpoints. More to the point, it's a claim of a consistent world view, inclusive of the entire set of propositions you believe to be true, whether each is taken on the basis of deduction, induction, or irrationality. Given that it's so "expected", maybe it was excessive of me to point it out.
But I was surprised to learn there is at least one major religion that claims quite the opposite: text written chronologically later supersedes the earlier text.
|
