Is Pi = 3.1415 or 3.33 ?

[Binary_Branflakes]

I'd round Pi to 3. Hey, there's a crazy christian site that establish this... http://www.truechristian.com

 

lol!!

 

Okay, First i'm sorry I'm so late in this conversation but it's because i just joined again last nite. (i was a member of this site about 4 or 5 years ago, but ya know...life happened, hah)

 

Anyways, i looked at that site because it peaked my interest because I am a Christian. But, what aggravates me to no end is Christians who get on the internet (or wherever) and try to discredit Scientists and Mathematicians by misqouting verses and reading more into things than are! i could EASILY blast away that argument for the 3.333 argument that they are basing on that one scripture! They are assuming that it was PERFECTLY round and not "more round than square". Geesh! Anyways...had to rant a second.

 

Science doesn't contradict God...it strengthens the argument for Him.

 

Anyways, i'm not about to get into a theology debate. i'm done. :steering:

[Pyrotex]

I'd round Pi to 3. Hey, there's a crazy christian site that establish this... http://www.truechristian.com

lol!!

That crazy christian site is waaaaaaaaaay over the top. I think it is a parody site. I know the so-called Kidz Bible Stories are so violent and pornicious, I wouldn't show em to an adult, let alone a kid. They DO accurately render the Bible stories, however.

Yuch.:confused:

[Guadalupe]

Hi! CraigD :cup:

 

 

The mathematical community would be interested, and the whole of mathematics thrown into chaos by such a (successful) proof, as it would directly contradict sereal widely accepted proofs that Pi is transcendental – that is, cannot be written as an expression with a finite (polynomial) number of terms, beginning with von Lindemann’s 1882 transcendentality proofs.

 

I’d be surprised if such a proof is possible.

 

 

Could you name a few of this places in the mathematical community that would be interested? Thanks. :cup:

 

 

Happy Pi Day! :hihi:

 

 

:cup:

[jpittelo]

Yes, there was in this thread written, that PI is defined as the ratio of the circonference to the diameter. However, you do not specify the context, or more prfecisely the space on which this circle is considered (Riemannian geometries). For example, on a sphere it is obvius to see that Pi is not a constant : PI(sphere)=PI(flat)*sin(r/R)/(r/R)where r=radius of the circle, R=radius of the sphere, PI(flat)=4*atan(1.0)=3.141592..etc..as given above.

 

It is evident that PI(sphere)<=PI(flat). Question : On which surface S is PI(S)>PI(flat) ?

 

(What about defining PI as the ratio (Surface of circle) over (radius squared ?)

[Qfwfq]

It's obvious that the definition was implicitly meant in flat Euclidean space.

[Guadalupe]

Hi! CraigD :)

 

 

Has anyone ever considered using the percentage of a diameter in order to find the circumference of a perfect circle?

 

Has anyone in the past history ever considered it as an alternative?

 

 

 

:cup:

[CraigD]

Has anyone ever considered using the percentage of a diameter in order to find the circumference of a perfect circle?

I’m uncertain what you mean, Guadalupe. Could you describe this technique in more detail?

[Tormod]

Seeing as you change the topic title to "Copyrighting Pi?" I'd assume you're thinking of claiming first use on something. However, I don't think you can claim copyright on mathematical processes.

[Guadalupe]

Hi! CraigD :evil:

 

 

I’m uncertain what you mean, Guadalupe. Could you describe this technique in more detail?

 

 

See my New Thread on Pi. :eek:

 

 

:cup:

[Guadalupe]

Hi! Tormod :evil:

 

 

Seeing as you change the topic title to "Copyrighting Pi?" I'd assume you're thinking of claiming first use on something. However, I don't think you can claim copyright on mathematical processes.

 

 

I’m not claiming first use on anything. I’m simply replying to Post #45 and I’m not copyrighting Pi or the mathematical processes. :eek:

 

 

:cup:

[C1ay]

Hi! CraigD :evil:

 

 

 

 

 

See my New Thread on Pi. :eek:

 

 

:cup:

You mean the thread I closed? One thread on this worthless claim is enough. Don't start anymore.

[anglepose]

Well as qouted by shuan from shuan of the dead

"pie has meat in it and meat is an anogram of team"

that is about as relevent to pi as your theory]

 

 

Too right c1ay

[Pyrotex]

Hi! CraigD :lol:

Has anyone ever considered using the percentage of a diameter in order to find the circumference of a perfect circle? Has anyone in the past history ever considered it as an alternative?

Guadalupe,

the answer is 'yes'. the answer is 'obviously'.

The circumference is 314.1596...% of the diameter. (Pi times 100)

 

Guadalupe, hasn't it ever occured to YOU to just get yourself a tape measure and a large circle (say, a bicycle wheel) and just MEASURE PI???? No, it hasn't occured to you, or this whole thread would never have been started in the first place. Well, go DO IT. Measure the circumference, C. Then measure the diameter, D. Then divide C by D.

 

Pi = C/D.

 

Forget all the silly theories. Just measure the damn thing and be done with it.

[Nootropic]

How exactly are the digits of pi calculated out (besides supercomputers)? I know there are algorithms, one of the most used having been developed by gah...Indian mathematician whose name starts with R (his name escapes me). And exactly how advanced are the mathematics?

[CraigD]

How exactly are the digits of pi calculated out (besides supercomputers)? I know there are algorithms,

As you appear to suspect, virtually all estimations of [math]\pi[/math] are calculated using numeric algorithms

one of the most used having been developed by gah...Indian mathematician whose name starts with R (his name escapes me).

Ramanujan. For a number theory fan like me, forgetting this name would be like a rock guitar fan forgetting Hendrix! ;)

And exactly how advanced are the mathematics?

The mathematics required to perform the calculations are very basic arithmetic, within the ability of anyone who has mastered division of decimal numbers, and understands the concept of raising an integer to an integer power. For example, a simple, though not very efficient series that converges on [math]\pi[/math] is:

[math]\Pi =\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{4 \times (-1)^{n+1}}{2*n-1}[/math]

 

Can be performed, step by-step, like this:

[LATEX]0.00000 + \frac{4 \times 1}{2-1} = 0.00000 + 4.00000 = 4.00000[/LATEX]

 

[LATEX]4.00000 + \frac{4 \times -1}{4-1} = 4.00000 -1.33333 = 2.66667[/LATEX]

 

[LATEX]2.66667 + \frac{4 \times 1}{6-1} = 2.66667 + 0.80000 = 3.46667[/LATEX]

 

[LATEX]3.46667 + \frac{4 \times -1}{8-1} = 3.46667 -0.57143 = 2.89524[/LATEX]

 

[LATEX]2.89524 + \frac{4 \times 1}{10-1} = 2.89524 + 0.44444 = 3.33968[/LATEX]

 

[LATEX]3.33968 + \frac{4 \times -1}{12-1} = 3.33968 -0.36364 = 2.97605[/LATEX]

 

[LATEX]2.97605 + \frac{4 \times 1}{14-1} = 2.97605 + 0.30769 = 3.28374[/LATEX]

 

[LATEX]3.28374 + \frac{4 \times -1}{16-1} = 3.28374 -0.26667 = 3.01707[/LATEX]

 

[LATEX]3.01707 + \frac{4 \times 1}{18-1} = 3.01707 + 0.23529 = 3.25237[/LATEX]

 

[LATEX]3.25237 + \frac{4 \times -1}{20-1} = 3.25237 -0.21053 = 3.04184[/LATEX]

 

…

[LATEX]3.15169 + \frac{4 \times -1}{200-1} = 3.15169 - 0.02010 = 3.13159[/LATEX]

 

[LATEX]3.13159 + \frac{4 \times 1}{202-1} = 3.13159 + 0.01990 = 3.15149[/LATEX]

 

…

 

The math necessary to understand why this algorithm works is slightly more advanced.

 

The math necessary to understand [math]\pi[/math] well enough to invent original algorithms like this is even more advances, on the level of mastery.

[Pyrotex]

As you appear to suspect, virtually all estimations of [math]\pi[/math] are calculated using numeric algorithms...For example, a ...series that converges on [math]\pi[/math] is:

[math]\Pi =\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{4 \times (-1)^{n+1}}{2*n-1}[/math]

....

Pretty!