/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9295488]

Why is π so popular amongst normie plebs when e is the superior constant?
>don't need to rely on hacky exploits to calculate it
>doesn't require five billion terms to get ten accurate digits
>actually makes sense
>can be found in multiple interesting ways, several different definitions
>logarithms with base e are called _natural_ because they're just so widely-used and intuitive, even have their own button on most calculators
Is e /ourconstant/?

[Anonymous No.9295496]

You are a retatded normie if you care about this shit.n

[Anonymous No.9295503]

>>9295488
>logarithms with base e are called _natural_ because they're just so widely-used and intuitive
No, they're called natural because e^x is its own derivative function.
Also both e and π are important. e is the basis for growth processes and π is the basis for circularity.

[Anonymous No.9295512]

>>9295488
Why is e so popular amongst sophmoric plebs when Chaitin's Ω is the superior constant?
>cannot be calculated at all---tfw two chadly/powerful for virgin recursive decision procedures
>first n digits are still limit computable
>makes no fucking sense at all but still exists
>unavoidable, regardless of your definition of effectively computable
>looks like a horseshoe because it's lucky
Is Ω /ourconstant/?

[math]{\text{No, because judging constants as better or worse by popularity is wankery when all constants have interesting properties. ▮}}[/math]

[Anonymous No.9295516]

>>9295503
and Euler's identity relates them to one another.

[Anonymous No.9295574]

irrational numbers dosent exist

[Anonymous No.9295710]

π > e
check and mate, faggot

[Anonymous No.9296111]

>>9295710
e = pi = 3

[Anonymous No.9296126]

>>9296111
Trips confirm pi is exactly three.

[Anonymous No.9296134]

>>9295488
The problem is that pi is typically defined as the area of the unit circle or the proportionality constant between a circle's squared radius and area.

See the problem with those definitions? They come from geometry. Drawing lines and masturbating to angles is not real math. That is why you think pi sucks. But there is a different way to see pi using actual beautiful mathematics.

Lets consider a number theoretic definition of pi, so that we see it's beauty.

Pi is, by definition, the square root of ( the sum of the reciprocals of the square of all natural numbers multiplied by six).

So we can see, pi does not come from some stupid circle. Pi directly comes from natural numbers. It is a constant involved in the sum of the reciprocal of all the squares. And not only that, it is also involved in the reciprocal of all the (2k)th powers. What a beautiful number, don't you agree?

[Anonymous No.9296876]

>>9296134
I think you meant that
Pi is the square root of (the sum of the reciprocals of the square of all natural numbers) multiplied by six.
Pi is also equal to 4 multiplied by (1 - 3^-1 + 5^-1 - 7^-1 + 9^-1 -11^-1 + 13^-1 -.......... )

[Anonymous No.9296893]

>>9295512
It's so powerful that if we knew the first 100 digits of one one those conatants basically all outstanding math problems would be solved. The paper describing this literally refers to its "cabbalistic properties". It's hard to get more badass than that.

[Anonymous No.9297205]

>>9295488
Normies remember circles better than they do logarithms.

[Anonymous No.9297694]

People are familiar with area of a disc, not so much area under hyperbolas. It's easier for brainlets to see circles in nature than exponential growth.

[Anonymous No.9298395]

>>9296893
>cabbalistic
I just read it, damn it was intredasting as fuck
not often you see a paper end on a note so lyrical

[Anonymous No.9298734]

>>9295512
>>9296893
>>9298395
Please enlighten me on this one.
I get that it's the probability that a randomly-constructed program will halt, but how do we even know it exists? How do we know it's a normal number if we don't even know any of its digits? How would it solve every major math problem if we knew the first 100 digits? If the first n digits are limit computable, how come one cannot compute it?

[Anonymous No.9298742]

>>9298734
I found this, I suppose it's the paper that guy referred to, read On Random and Hard-to-Describe Numbers that starts on page 3
http://marcuschown.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/calude-book.pdf

It gives the algorithm on how to decide the termination of a program if you know the value of omega. Pretty cool stuff.