Gogwale's colorful paper http://www.ijera.com/papers/Vol3_issue4/KL3418811903.pdf shows considerable courage. I have also been investigating the value of pi but I have preferred historical to geometric methods. There is a convention (one might even say conspiracy) in mathematics that makes it daring, perhaps reckless, for anyone, no matter how well established in the mathematical community, to suggest openly that the value of pi could be far from the long-accepted value dating back to the Greeks. For example, a careful reading of the work of G.H. Hardy, one of the most admired figures in 20th Century mathematics, suggests he believed in quite a different value of pi but dared not say so openly. At the end of section 14 of Hardy's essay A Mathematicians Apology (bottom of page 23 of the original 1940 and 1941 editions), we find pi expressed as 314159265 -------------- 1000000000 a value much closer to 1/3 than the usually accepted ``three and a bit.'' One might naturally assume that this was merely a typographic error but this view is undercut by the appearance of the same expression on page 102 (the 80-page discrepancy comes from the addition of C.P. Snow's charming introduction) of the 1967 edition and in the electronic edition of 2005 issued by the University of Alberta http://www.math.ualberta.ca/mss/misc/A%20Mathematician's%20Apology.pdf whose pagination follows the original. Although Hardy was at pains to explain his lack of interest in physics, the consequences of the longstanding error must extend far beyond pure mathematics. One intriguing possibility is that this smaller value may go some way toward explaining the extremely small size of the half-dozen extra ``rolled-up'' dimensions with which the string theorists fill out their universe. Whit