/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9286302
Things are the way they are configured to be. If things were any other way, things would be different.

>>9286308
hey bill

>>9286308
>it's already catching on
how can one man go from one of the most lovable science guys to this

>>9286308
Bill pls

>>9286302
Technically because of the existence of the Plank distance, pi is finite. Its "transdentialness" is because of autistic mathematicians being retarded.

>>9286418
>hurr durr plancks distance is smallest
How to spot a popsci loving faggot.

>>9286421
He's right. In the real, physical universe, all measurement ends at the Planck distance. If you weren't a fantasy-dwelling math faggot, you'd know that's not pop science.

>>9286302

How do we know if the digits of pi are correct?

>>9286308
kek

>>9286308
Can someone give me a rundown on this meme

>>9286564
Planck units are not quanta, please stop treating them as such.

>>9286302
Literally proven that it doesn't.

>>9286302
Then you could square a circle

>>9286302

>>9286593
>>9284048

>>9286598

What do you mean by that?

It very clearly has an end, in this picture. A circle with a radius of one, is rolled along a flat surface, which describes its circumference as a linear length. That length is called "pi".

Unless of course you mean /something else/. In which case you should try to describe what you mean.

>>9286660

kek

>>9286660
I wasn't the one who said length, that was the OP. And the only reasonable interpretation of it is that he means its decimal representation.

This foolish tomfuckery of irrational numbers will only be resolved when we stop treating mathematics as some sort of bean counting exercise.

>>9286668

No, it isn't. (See me!)

Also the OP never mentioned "length", the word itself. That was you riffing off my post.

>>9286709
>No, it isn't. (See me!)
I think it should be fairly obvious that that isn't a reasonable interpretation for the very trivially obvious reasons you yourself gave.

>>9286714

And if thinks and thuts were candy and nuts then you would still miss the point.

The OP asks "whether pi has an end". Assuming that this >>9286598 is yours, you /assume a particular frame/, which you are obliged to defend. I point out that the opaque language of the OP can (and should) be taken in more than one way, and so you are obliged to fight your corner: "of course decimal representation was meant, don't be stupid".

You've now made two material mistakes: you ascribed the word /length/ to the OP, and you've /assumed/ that it should be fairly obvious that such-and-such candy-and-nuts.

We can even allow that the OP is itself a troll in order to get at clear thinking on the subject. Two senses are suggested in all of this: as a geometric object, pi has a very simple "end", as a short finite length. Or if one wants to abstract to the digits, then we can end up at what you are about. The point is that the possible-troll OP is an invitation for us to think clearly about usage of language.

>>9286302
The opposite has already been proven.

>>9286724
The proof was already posted m8 >>9286638
But feel free to jerk off over the possible meanings of a troll post on /sci/ and "candy and nuts" or whatever the hell that was about.

>>9286732

The point is that you do not understand what has been written, as stated, and that it is important to carefully discern context. Ph.Ds understand this.

>>9286724
This is hilarious, a true 10/10 brainlet post.

Defending ignorance by doubling down on it.
>NO I AM NOT WRONG AND UNABLE TO INTERPRET AN ENGLISH SENTENCE EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG REEEEEE

Truly cancer, if you stop posting.

>>9286660
Pi not having an end, doesn't mean that it is not a fixed number of the real line you stupid brainlet.

>>9286564
Shoot yourself.

>arguing semantics instead of what OP actually meant
Fuck mathematicians

>>9286302
If pi has an end, then there's no such thing as a perfect curve. Pi is the anti-aliasing constant of the universe. The moment it ends is the moment we see the jaggies.

>>9286903
>>arguing semantics instead of what OP actually meant
>Fuck mathematicians
There is nothing to discuss about OPs post. He is wrong, might as well ask "what if the sky has always been red"?

Pi has infinite digits, that has been proven.

>>9286594
what are they then?

>>9286951
Well that much is true
But arguments like >>9286740
>>9286724
>>9286668
>>9286663
are just pointless and pathetic

>>9286308
>Things are the way they are configured to be. If things were any other way, things would be different.
Bill Nye (((saves))) the World Again

>>9286418
Hey, this is a pretty fun troll. Mind if I use it?

then there won't be circles

>>9287076
>are just pointless and pathetic
I agree, but this is /sci/.
What else are you expecting?

>>9286302
If pi terminates in any rational base then pi is a rational number. It's not a rational number. Therefore it doesn't terminate in any rational base.

A better question would be what bases does pi end in other than base pi

What about sexagesimals?

>>9286302
All relevant applications involving pi truncate it at some point, so basically nothing would change.

>>9286947
Why dont they use pi in video games and make perfect anti aliasing

>>9287301
Base 2 pi?

>>9287475
because pi is not real (it is a so-called """real""" but not real) so you can't use it in real things like computers it only exists in mathematicians' fairytales

>>9286582
You could use calculus to approximate pi (e.g. using integrals)

>>9286418
Fucking pop sci cocksucker.
Also pi is the ratio between a circle's perimeter and diameter in an euclidean space. There's no shit like plank scale.
And even if there was that's just the distance in which physical laws shit themselves and we cannot extract any information from it. It doesn't mean there aren't smaller distances.

>>9286564
>Samefagging this hard

>>9286302
It doesn't because circles don't have an end.

>>9288152
Their end equals the starting point. Otherwise how would you do integrals on closed curves?

>>9288154
>Their end equals the starting point.

Which is another way of saying there is no start or end point.

If PI is infinite, then it cannot have a beginning or an end. It cannot be a number, because a number has to be finite.

>>9286302
Then we're living in a simulation. Prove me wrong.

Pro tip: You can't

>>9288158
Pi is not infinite retard. It just has infinite decimal places aka irrational number because we picked up a retarded number base. If we chose Pi to be our new unit then the number 1 would be the retarded one.

>>9288160

A simulation of what?

>>9288169
>It just has infinite decimal places

Oh like every other number does? 1 is also

doesn't start 000000000000000000000000001.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 doesn't end

inifnite decimal places.

>>9288169
>base 10 is retarded
t. nonphysicist brainlet

>>9288226
I was joking. I'm a physicist though.

>>9288217
Pic related

>>9286418
Math is completely abstracted, so the plank distance, a property of the non-abstract, has no influence on pi.

>>9288160
A simulation could never be vast enough to contain ur mum

>the last five numbers is 80085