/sci/ - Science & Math

...one?

Well that picture tells me about 50, so I could do that.
As for what I remember, like 3 or so.

The first two for pi and none for e. Why would I care?

>>2391999

On the quantum scale, pi fluctuates.

1681. I add a new one every day.

>>2392010
full retard, etc. pi is not a physical constant and is not subject to any of the laws that govern our universe.

in every other possible universe and this one:
<div class="math">{\pi} = 4\sum^\infty_{k=0} \frac{(-1)^k}{2k+1}</div>

when I was a faggot I memorized somewhere around 24 before I was mature enough to realize that rotely memorizing stuff like that doesn't actually make you any more intelligent or smart in any useful capacity.
For ball-park mental calculations (a useful skill) just approximate it as "a little over 3"

3.141592653589793238462643

It sounds like a little song when I say it in my head.

>>2392010
shut up

>>2391999
>since pi & e are irrationnal, we cannot know all theirs decimal.
OP is a fag
Liouville constant <span class="math">\sum_{j=1}^\infty 10^{-j!}[/spoiler] is transcendental but we know al its decimal digits.

>>2392047
that and there are algorithms for extracting the nth digit of pi in decimal and hexadecimal without needing the previous digits

>>2392028
Pi does fluctuate, because on the quantum scale distance and curvature fluctuates.Other universes can have different curvature. In our universe a cube has 6 sides, other universes can have cubes with a different number of sides, and circles can be wider across their diameter than their circumference.

I know what I'm talking about, idiot.

>>2392126
No, you don't.

>>2392131
If you don't know what I'm talking about, look up "quantum space-time" or "Quantum foam"

Yes, I DO know what I'm talking about.

>>2392126
Please god let it be a troll.

Pi is defined in terms of the abstract mathematical concept of a circle and has nothing to do with physical laws. We define a cube to be the six-sided figure with six square sides in three-space; again, this is a mathematical concept and has nothing to do with physics. There are geometries in which what we refer to as circles have strange properties but those aren't conventional, and they're "circles" almost entirely as a matter of convenient notation, having little to do with the normal concept of circles.

>>2392126

pi = 4
problem?

>>2392177
If you add a dimension, a ball becomes doughnut-shaped, yes? The inside connects to the outside.

There are alternate configurations for universes, where physical laws have different constants and values.
On the level of vacuum fluctuations, space changes, particles meet and annihilate, and those particles are made of spacetime itself.

I'm not talking about the scale of your thumb.

I'm not talking about the scale of a cell in your body.

I'm not talking about the scale of an atom.

I'm talking about the scale where spacetime is boiling wormholes everywhere. So small that a passing electron stabilizes it momentarily.

PI.

DOES.

CHANGE.

Go to school and try to graduate this time. Unless you're an American, then you're as fucked as an African as far as science is concerned.

>>2392270
>trying too hard

troll overload

>>2392273

I provided a legitimate argument. Tear it apart instead of saying I'm trolling.

>>2392277
>HURR
>DURR
>DERP
>I provided a legitimate argument

>>2391999
I know like 41 dp of pi (because apparently you need 40 to be able to construct a circle with the diameter of the observable universe to within the accuracy of a single hydrogen atom).
3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716

As for e, I know 9 because they just stuck in my head.
2.718281828

>>2392270
>non sequitur
>non sequitur
>non sequitur
>non sequitur
>PI DOES CHANGE.
>insult

>>2392270
the ratio of circumference to diameter varies, but pi is a natural constant as defined in flat space. you tried to troll too hard on a simple definition.

>>2392288
So... you memorized enough so that, in an emergency where you can't look up pi, you can construct a circle perfect to within a single atom out of the entire universe?

That's... that's not really a compelling reason

>>2392301
Yes it is.
You never know when such a situation might arise.
What if I was forced to do it at knifepoint?
This knowledge could save my life.

>>2392312
Protip: nobody knows

Hey /sci/, can you prove that pi + e is irrational? It doesn't seem too hard.

>>2392300
There is no flat space. Space is curved.

3.14159265358979323846264338327950

32 decimal places - up to the first zero. makes me feel like i have the smallest rounding error.

>>2392312
Start by proving rational + irrational = irrational

x + y = z
x is rational
y is irrational
assume z is rational
x can be expressed as a/d
z can be expressed as c/d = a/d + b/d
y = b/d = (c-a)/d which must be rational
y is rational, contradiction

I did half, you can do the rest :3

Say you have a circle the size of a galaxy. In the middle of that circle you have a black hole.

The diameter can now be greater than the circumference.

>>2392288

but the ratio of the diameter of the universe to the diameter of an atom is only like ~10^27.

>>2392277
the idea of a circle is independent of a universe. It's a two dimensional (this is a mathematically well defined concept, look up euclidean/unitary vector spaces of finite dimension) object.

The circle with unit radius for example is the set of all points whose distance (again, well defined concept in maths, doesn't need physical world or anything) from the origin is exactly 1.

The area enclosed by this set is the set of all points whose distance to the origin does not exceed 1. If we assume a square of side-length 1 to have area 1, then the area enclosed by the unit circle will have area pi.

>>2392344
Yeah but you aren't taking into account uncertainty.

>>2392358
so the reasoning is...?

>>2392344
Ignore >>2392358, they are just talking bullshit.
It's actually hydrogen nucleus, not atom sorry.

>>2392353
>the idea of a circle is independent of a universe. It's a two dimensional (this is a mathematically well defined concept, look up euclidean/unitary vector spaces of finite dimension) object.

Fine. Pi does not actually exist in our universe, only approximations of it.

Imaginary Pi does not equal pi in our universe. Like I said.

>>2392343
Then it's not a circle. How hard is this to understand?

>>2392270
>a ball becomes doughnut-shaped, yes?
The torus is a projection of a 4-dimensional object. It's convenient to think of a 4-dimensional sphere as a torus, but that's not how a 4-dimensional sphere looks, in actuality.

Even then, that's entirely irrelevant because geometers, of all branches of mathematics, care the least about conforming the math to fit the world we live in. Geometry is a tool to describe the world, but not to define it - consequently, you'll never see perfect circles in the real world.

I am ashamed to say that i know pi to 1000 decimals. The only reason I did this was to prove to some people that I could(yeah I know that's a lame reason), but it is kind of fun though because it makes stupid people think I'm some kind of super-genious

>>2392374
>Then it's not a circle.

Prove it.

>>2392374
>Then it's not a circle.

My description still works in a 2 dimensional spacetime.

>>2392381
By previous theorems, the circumference of a circle is equivalent to pi multiplied by the diameter of that circle.

Consequently, if the diameter of your circle is in fact greater than the circumference, it can be easily conferred that your circle is, in fact, not a circle, as that leads to an absurd conclusion.

Fine?

>>2392373

that's still only an extra 5 orders though...

ha, so i actually know enough to get that accuracy
32 decimals here >>2392335

>>2392374
>you'll never see perfect circles in the real world.

Right. Pi is more accurate in math than it is in our universe.

>>2392385
The very fact that you use the term "spacetime" indicates that you don't understand what the word abstract means. This isn't about space, this is about mathematical definition.

If I draw a graph of y = 2x, and you say "YEAH WELL THERE'S A BLACK HOLE AT (3,6)" then I'm not going to really care what you say. Be glad that I'm humoring you thus far.

>>2392390

whoa. the first zero in pi is at the accuracy of a proton to the universe (32 orders)

EXPLAIN THAT ATHEISTS.

>>2392389
What was measured to get pi? Circumference divided by diameter, yes? Give me an accurate diameter and circumference that has perfect pi as the answer.

>>2392395
Furthermore, I'm going to define my circle as a two-dimensional object such that all points are equidistant from the origin. Now explain where a black hole fits in to that formulation. Note: If you add it in yourself, then you're changing the definition.

>>2392395
The universe is the definition. What are measuring?

>>2392406
It occurs a lot earlier in binary.

>>2392395
The universe is the definition. What are you measuring?

>>2392407
>Give me an accurate diameter and circumference that has perfect pi as the answer
Given that pi is equivalent to the ratio between diameter and circumference, and pi is, itself, irrational, you're going to have me typing for a long time trying to write it out. If this is some twisted proof in your head that irrational numbers don't exist, then you're a lost cause. If you're trying to bring scientific "precision" into the mathematical realm, then you need to think about what a proof is and how it's different from gathering evidence, and why that difference is significant.

>>2392416

But GOD gave us 10 fingers.

>>2392407
Limit as n approaches infinity of the ratio of the perimeter of an n-polygon to the distance from its center to the midpoint of one side.

>>2392427
What god? There's no god.

>>2392434
oh yeah? then explain this, wise guy:
>>2392406

He shows us He is here and loves us, but you choose not to listen.

3.14159265358979323846264338327950288
idk how many but this

>>2392410
I've been defending the change of pi on the level of vacuum fluctuations -IN- -OUR- -UNIVERSE-. Someone else said I was wrong. I pointed out why I am correct.

Now you're removing the universe again, when my argument has always been "pi is not actually a constant in our universe" because from the scale where space itself is particulate pairs to the cosmologically big, it changes.

We have more accurate descriptions of pi than can physically exist in our universe.

>>2392410
>a two-dimensional object such that all points are equidistant from the origin

Cool circle bro

>>2392410
>a two-dimensional object such that all points are equidistant from the origin

Cool circle bro

Pi is exactly 4.

Pi: 3.1415926535....
e: 2.718281828....
All I know offhand. I ought to memorize a few more just for the hell of it.

>>2392337
except that irrational + irrational can be a rational.

Anyone who says "proving that e+pi isn't rational can't be too hard" is an idiot who has never looked into the problem and probably doesn't even know the proofs that e and pi are irrational or even any kind of analytic definition of these constants.

tl;dr fucktards gon fucktard

If you know that e and pi are transcendental it's easy to show that one of e+pi and e*pi must be irrational, since
(X-e)(X-pi) = X^2 -(e+pi)X + e*pi
can't have only rational coefficients, otherwise pi and e wouldn't be transcendental.
Thus at least we can say that either e+pi or e*pi must be irrational.
(It's of course conjectured that both are irrational, but prove of this defies current techniques.)

<span class="math">\pi = 3[/spoiler], however <span class="math">4 \pi = 12.5[/spoiler].

<span class="math">e = 3[/spoiler] as well.

<div class="math">\pi: \quad 3.1415926536</div>
<div class="math">e:\quad 2.7</div>

pi = 4 arctan (1)
owned

Outside of an imaginary mathematical plane, and inside of our real universe, what is the actual, physical, real-universe value of Pi?

>>2392466
He means there are an infinite set of points equidistant from the origin.

>>2392631
It's <span class="math">\pi[/spoiler].

>>2392648
The numerical value based off of the curvature of space in our universe. I don't want the symbol.

>>2392723
Pi isn't based on our universe.

>>2392723

I don't think you understand what an irrational number is.

>>2392731
It was first measured off of a column of stone by Archimedes. He started it. If you can't get an accurate measure, then you're not working with the real-universe value of pi, you're working with a non repeating approximation of the value of pi in our universe. Mental masturbation.

I need the value for pi that is described by our universe, not a circle drawn on a perfect imaginary mathematical plane.

>>2392751

You don't understand how Pi is defined, that's the matter. Pi is the division of the circumference of a perfect circle by its radius.

Perfect circles don't exist in our universe. So all Archimedes (and all of us too) can measure is an approximation of Pi with the approximations of perfect circles he had (we have).

for e i know 2,71
pi 3,141568

but its useless to know more then 2 decimals

>>2392769
Yes, exactly. I don't need math-perfect Pi, I need the Pi of our imperfect universe.

For example, Pi under different degrees of spacial compression. Pi on the inside of a singularity compared to Pi measured a billion lightyears from the nearest galaxy. I need to measure Pi as it exists, not work with an imaginary number.

3,141592653
2,718281828

>>2392790
that's not a well defined concept. Basically pi measured can be an arbitrary value.
I mean, I just drew a very ugly circle and pi worked out to be around 5.

You're stupid, you don't understand the difference between mathematics and reality.

In reality there aren't even natural numbers if you're anal, only our idea of them. Analogously there aren't any other kinds of numbers.

You're stupid, have I said that already? In case I didn't: you're stupid.

>>2392306
You actually need 50 digits to do that, not 40. GTFO until you learn 10 more digits.

>>2392800
I DO understand the difference between mathematics and reality.

Math is very accurate. The universe is sloppy. I don't need Math Pi, I need the version the universe uses.

>>2392782
>pi 3,141568
>3,141568
>68

wrong dude

>>2392823
Then let Pi be a 3.14.

>>2392823
>I need the version the universe uses.
Hm, have I mentioned that you're stupid?

In case I haven't: you're stupid.

You sound like a complete tool. Evolution doesn't have a direction, the universe doesn't "use" any mathematical constants.

You understanding of anything seems seriously limited.
I'm sorry.

Yeah, I know 80 digits by heart. I was bored for a few hours at school.
If you want to use (-0.5)!^2 I know the exact value.

3.141592653
5897932384
6264338327
9502884197
1693993751
0582097494
4592307816
4062862089

>>2392800

To reiterate: I need to be able to measure Pi, not run a calculation. I need to be able to measure Pi if part of the diameter falls through an area of collapsed space and reaches infinity, or at least express it.

>>2392858
>evolution

Whatever, OCD-fanboi. I can tell you understand what I'm saying by the amount of mad and butthurt in your post.

I just want to know why no one has calculated pi to 10²° or so decimal. They always seem to stop at around a billion and act like they've done something special. It'd only be a couple terabytes.

3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706
79
8214808651328230664709384460955058223172535940812848111745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196
4428810975665933446128475648233786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273
724587006606315588174881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146951941511609

you spelt genius wrong genius