Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun.   Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

## #1 2011-03-03 04:47:41

Transcendental
Banned

Offline

### Pi Discussion

?

Last edited by Transcendental (2011-03-05 11:07:13)

Knowing is Just Around The Corner!...And Not Knowing is Just Around The Other Corner!

## #2 2011-03-03 11:48:26

John E. Franklin
Star Member

Offline

### Re: Pi Discussion

Your bracket method allows digits from adjacent brackets to be added together with a shifted digit on one of them.
Is that your intention or did you expect more.

igloo myrtilles fourmis

## #3 2011-03-03 20:22:47

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Pi Discussion

There is no most accurate fraction because there is an infinite amount of them. I hope you are not applying your .9999999... ideas to pi. It is fine in chess for you to hold other opinions but in mathematics we must all speak the same language. To accomplish that we agree ( all of us, amateur and professional ) to define terms before we use them.

(3.012)(4.998)(4.998)/(1.101)(1.101)(2.99)...Which as an Example equals 355/113

How does that equal 355 / 113?

#### GiB wrote:

Because so far No One has!

You are absolutley right. So why work on it? If the brightest minds in history could not where does that leave the rest of us?

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #4 2011-03-03 21:20:33

Transcendental
Banned

Offline

### Re: Pi Discussion

?

Last edited by Transcendental (2011-03-05 11:07:51)

Knowing is Just Around The Corner!...And Not Knowing is Just Around The Other Corner!

## #5 2011-03-04 00:52:20

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Pi Discussion

Why do you believe that the 3rd digit of pi is inaccurate?

Pi has been calculated to trillions of places. You think there is an error on the 3.14159265...! Each decimal digit can only hold one digit. you cannot put 1.001 in the first digit after the decimal point. The 4 is not 3.998. If you do not trust the 4 in 3.14159265... then why do you trust your 3.998 that is somehow squashed into a single digit.

#### GeniusIsBack wrote:

The brightest minds in history was less than a second ago! How do you know they have all been found!!

Supposing it is not you? Why continue to hammer away at the decimal digits of every decimal you see? Could you not find something more productive to do? Something with a chance of success.

The problem with the digits of pi is that no one knows whether they are random or not. To research this men have looked at billions of digits. You are currently stuck on the second digit. You will have to go a little further then doubting the 4.

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #6 2011-03-04 02:04:47

Transcendental
Banned

Offline

### Re: Pi Discussion

?

Last edited by Transcendental (2011-03-05 11:08:26)

Knowing is Just Around The Corner!...And Not Knowing is Just Around The Other Corner!

## #7 2011-03-04 06:24:18

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Pi Discussion

I hope FLT means Fork Lift Truck because you are looking at the only dude who never worked on the FLT or FLT.

Let me explain why;

FLT - a guy named Andy already beat you out and claimed the million. He immediately went out, bought a new pair of pants and is currently dating Paris Hilton.

FLT - The aliens beat you out 20 million years ago when a reptilian scientist ( I forget its name ) discovered how.

I can generate any fraction I want to get more and more correct digits and so can everyone else.

You say you are going back to the beginning. So you still think the 4 is incorrect.

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #8 2011-03-04 07:27:33

Transcendental
Banned

Offline

### Re: Pi Discussion

?

Last edited by Transcendental (2011-03-05 11:08:49)

Knowing is Just Around The Corner!...And Not Knowing is Just Around The Other Corner!

## #9 2011-03-04 18:00:26

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Pi Discussion

So What is the Most Accurate Fraction found so far ?

This is your exact question, I have answered it. Your question is like asking what is the biggest number found so far?! I told you there is no biggest fraction. We can always find one that is larger with a little more work.

I know what FLT means, both of them. Humor is okay on the forum and I use it often.

As for the rest... Humor Hides Nervousness!

What does this mean? Please make an effort to eliminate vague comments that can be misinterpreted.

Inside the humor was a good piece of advice. If you go around falsely claiming that you have proved FLT then you lose all credibility! The Mathematics community are really protective of this baby, amateurs who spout off that they have proved it are generally laughed at. There is a famous book by Underwood Dudley that you should read.

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #10 2011-03-04 20:48:57

Transcendental
Banned

Offline

### Re: Pi Discussion

?

Last edited by Transcendental (2011-03-05 11:09:09)

Knowing is Just Around The Corner!...And Not Knowing is Just Around The Other Corner!

## #11 2011-03-04 21:12:59

gAr
Star Member

Offline

### Re: Pi Discussion

Yes!?
Use Ramanujan's formula!!?

Don't stop till you are satisfied!!!?

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense"  - Buddha?

"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."

## #12 2011-03-04 21:30:48

Transcendental
Banned

Offline

### Re: Pi Discussion

?

Last edited by Transcendental (2011-03-05 11:09:31)

Knowing is Just Around The Corner!...And Not Knowing is Just Around The Other Corner!

## #13 2011-03-04 21:34:55

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Pi Discussion

The first one was the Gregory Leibnitz series.

Here is Newtons best idea.

Or use the Borwein formulas which are based on the AGM.

You lose patience or until your machine melts. This one gives quintic convergence to pi / 4. With it you can easily verify that 3.14 is correct. Also if you try you will see there is no best fraction.

3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844609550582231725359408128481117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381964428810975665933446128475648233786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273724587006606315588174881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146951941511609433057270365759591953092186117381932611793105118548074462379962749567351885752724891227938183011949129833673362440656643086021394946395224737190702179860943702770539217176293176752384674818467669405132000568127145263560827785771342757789609173637178721468440901224953430146549585371050792279689258923542019956112129021960864034418159813629774771309960518707211349999998372978049951059731732816096318595024459455346908302642522308253344685035261931188171010003137838752886587533208381420617177669147303598253490428755468731159562863882353787593751957781857780532171226806613001927876611195909216420199

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #14 2011-03-04 21:56:06

bob bundy
Moderator

Offline

### Re: Pi Discussion

hi bobbym,

Good morning.

I think I've just melted my 'right arrow' key on my keyboard.

Bob

You cannot teach a man anything;  you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei

## #15 2011-03-04 22:02:28

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Pi Discussion

Hi Bob;

Good Morning. I was going to put a trillion digits of pi but since the discussion is about the 2nd digit that would be overkill.

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #16 2011-03-04 22:04:44

Transcendental
Banned

Offline

### Re: Pi Discussion

?

Last edited by Transcendental (2011-03-05 11:09:58)

Knowing is Just Around The Corner!...And Not Knowing is Just Around The Other Corner!

## #17 2011-03-04 22:06:11

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Pi Discussion

Hi;

Are you serious? Of course, did you think he just put anything down?

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #18 2011-03-04 22:20:06

gAr
Star Member

Offline

### Re: Pi Discussion

Hi bobbym,

Of course, he's not serious.

Now let him start discussing about the accuracy of √2

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense"  - Buddha?

"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."

## #19 2011-03-04 22:24:34

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Pi Discussion

Hi gAr;

Did you know that the Ramanujan formula is the basis for the Borwein formulas and all of the pi work done today?

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #20 2011-03-04 22:31:52

gAr
Star Member

Offline

### Re: Pi Discussion

Hi bobbym,

No, I haven't followed the formulas for calculating pi. I'm contented with the 10 digits I know!
Only read few of the formulas of ramanujan. How can a human ever imagine formulas like that?!

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense"  - Buddha?

"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."

## #21 2011-03-04 22:36:21

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Pi Discussion

Hi gAr;

He was a very interesting guy and a great genius. Those formulas he sent to Hardy were amazing and were the stimulus to the modern PSLQ.

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #22 2011-03-04 22:46:43

Transcendental
Banned

Offline

### Re: Pi Discussion

?

Last edited by Transcendental (2011-03-05 11:10:35)

Knowing is Just Around The Corner!...And Not Knowing is Just Around The Other Corner!

## #23 2011-03-04 22:48:47

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Pi Discussion

Ah Ha! I knew it. You snuck some of that GiB decimal ideas in there. So what digit of pi do you believe is incorrect besides the second one?

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #24 2011-03-04 22:50:10

gAr
Star Member

Offline

### Re: Pi Discussion

Yes, I read his biography a few months ago.
How advanced is his work, I haven't encountered his works in any of the courses I took !

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense"  - Buddha?

"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."

## #25 2011-03-04 22:54:05

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Pi Discussion

He did not have a tremendous amount of formal math knowledge. Hardy had to teach him about complex numbers. But in everything he did he was ahead of his time! You might run into him for the creation of the Hardy-Ramanujan-Rademacher formula for p(n).

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.