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

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

Pages: **1**

**pellerinb****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-26
- Posts: 43

I'm sure others have made similar discoveries... I just discovered 2^[9217/5581] = 3.1415926... is more simple and more accurate than Ramanujan's pi approximation equation of 2^0.5 * 9801 / 4412 cool!

*Last edited by pellerinb (2012-12-31 03:18:14)*

Prime numbers have got to be the neatest things; they are like atoms. Composites are two or more primes held together by multiplication.

In biology, we use math like we know what we are talking about. Sad isn't it.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,704

Hi;

2^9217/5581 = 3.1415926

This is probably a typo. What you have there is

which is not close to pi.

**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.**

Offline

**muxdemux****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-23
- Posts: 80

is probably a bit closer

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,704

Hi;

Yes, I know he needs a parentheses around that fraction.

**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.**

Offline

**muxdemux****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-23
- Posts: 80

My bad! I didn't realise you were imparting a lesson.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,704

Hi;

Actually not much of a lesson I am sure he already knows that.

His expression is quite close!

**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.**

Offline

**pellerinb****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-26
- Posts: 43

Thanks for noticing that typo! I just found 5^(4333/6092)=3.1415926587376378353132531097... Which is even more accurate than 2^[9217 /5581] yet just as simple. Cool!

Prime numbers have got to be the neatest things; they are like atoms. Composites are two or more primes held together by multiplication.

In biology, we use math like we know what we are talking about. Sad isn't it.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,704

Hi pellerinb;

What method are you using, brute force or something better?

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.

Offline

**pellerinb****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-26
- Posts: 43

Just brute force with code... Just takes a second to run. I'm on my way to a NYE party of non mathematicians so I'll give you the code when I get back to my laptop sometime in the new year Happy New Year!

Prime numbers have got to be the neatest things; they are like atoms. Composites are two or more primes held together by multiplication.

In biology, we use math like we know what we are talking about. Sad isn't it.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,704

Hi;

That is okay, I can write it. Enjoy the party!

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.

Offline

**pellerinb****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-26
- Posts: 43

Just in case others are wondering how I managed it, I want to check only the nearest integer. So for 2^[9999/x], I'll check 2^[9999/6055] because x = ||(9999 log(2))/(log(pi))|| = 6055. So for the rest, I'll check 2^[9998/(||9998*log(2))/(log(pi)||)]. I hope this makes sense.

*Last edited by pellerinb (2013-01-02 00:48:35)*

In biology, we use math like we know what we are talking about. Sad isn't it.

Offline

**noelevans****Member**- Registered: 2012-07-20
- Posts: 236

Not quite as accurate but easy to remember: Studder quoting the first three odd positive integers

1 1 3 3 5 5 and divide the 113 into the 355 to get 3.141593 accurate to 7 significant figures.

3. 1 4 1 5 9 2 9 ...

____________________ rounds to 3.141593 same as 3.14159265... does.

1 1 3 | 3 5 5. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Writing "pretty" math (two dimensional) is easier to read and grasp than LaTex (one dimensional).

LaTex is like painting on many strips of paper and then stacking them to see what picture they make.

Offline

**pellerinb****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-26
- Posts: 43

Accuracy doesn't increase ten-fold again until 41^[5429/17612]≈**3.141592653**6893...

In biology, we use math like we know what we are talking about. Sad isn't it.

Offline

**pellerinb****Member**- Registered: 2012-12-26
- Posts: 43

Here's one that increases it another ten-fold... 131^[5131/21852] ≈ **3.1415926535**55866563449102187233485139443062510610029...

In biology, we use math like we know what we are talking about. Sad isn't it.

Offline

Pages: **1**