You must log in or register to comment.
Nasa uses 15 digits of pi for solar system travel. And 42 digits is enough to calculate the entire universe to atomic accuracy
And 65 digits is sufficient to calculate the circumference of the visible universe to within a Planck length.
We need MOAR precision!
I know enough digits of pi to calculate the circumference of the universe??
Besides measuring it with a measuring tape.
More likely a mathematician would correct you instead of crying. Pi is not infinite, its decimal expansion is infinite!
This was my first thought and then I realized I had been nerd sniped.
This is the correct answer. Pi is known. What it’s decimal expansion looks like is irrelevant. It’s 1 in base Pi.
Yup, similar to the square root of two and Euler’s number.
These are numbers defined by their properties and not their exact values. In fact, we have imaginary numbers that don’t have values and yet are still extremely useful because of their defined properties.
Its decimal expansion is finite in the base pi.
1?
No 10. 1 is the same number in any base.
In my experience, 1 is equivalent with 1’s in other base… this particularly applies for base-ball
Plus even that isn’t enough: 10/3 has an infinite decimal expansion (in base 10 at least) too, but if π = 10/3, you’d be able to find exact circumferences. Its irrationality is what makes it relevant to this joke.
A mathematician is also perfectly happy with answers like “4π” as exact.
Plus what’s to stop you from having a rational circumference but irrational radius?
Writing this, I feel like I might have accidentally proved your point.
Mathematicians taking a physics class and being told they have to round things. That’s when the tears start flowing.
Exactly, a fraction is completely as valid of a way to express a number as using a decimal.
1/2 = 0.5
They’re both fully valid ways to write the exact same quantity
The actual punchline here should have been “there is no known equation to calculate the exact perimeter of an ellipse”, then sucking tears from an astrophysicist
Try it when you find some physicist that cares about exact values. Or when you see pigs flying over your head, both are about as likely.
I see, you were never at a Pink Floyd concert
Perfectly spherical pigs?
Would go well with my former teacher’s point-shaped cows.
Technically you can’t measure anything accurately because there’s an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 0. Whose to say it’s exactly 1? It could be off by an infinite amount of 0s and 1.
Achilles and the Tortoise paradox.
And you can’t trust anything calculated with an imaginary number. Common guys, it’s right there. It’s imaginary like the, totally not AI, person I’m pretending to be.
Ahem. MathEmaticians.
Let’s say you got a circle with radius 1/π…
came here for this
m e a s u r e
Bah, the universe is too messy and disordered to be worth the trouble
Yeah, calling pi infinite makes me wanna cry, too.
If only mathematicians had a number for that. Ya know, the people famous for making names for things on average once per published paper, most of them completely useless.
Joke’s on them, tears are too salty to provide hydration.
Who said Pi is infinite? If we take Pi as base unit, it is exactly 1. No fraction, perfectly round.
Now everything else requires an infinite precision.
I’m confused, how is pi used as a unit? My understanding is that it’s a number
1 is also a number, a number we chose by convention to be a base unit for all numbers. You can break down every number down to this unit.
20 is 20 1s. 1.5 is 1 and a half 1.
If we have Pi as a unit, circumference of a circle would be radius*2 of Pi units. But everything that doesn’t involve Pi would be a fraction of Pi, e.g. a normal 1 is roughly 1/3 of Pi units, 314 is roughly 100 Pi units, etc. etc.
6π is an acceptable answer for finding the circumference of a circle with a radius of 3 units of something.
Eek, that makes my skin crawl. Taking what you said literally would imply that π² = π.
I’m pretty sure a base-Pi counting system would mean that Pi is π, not 1.
You’d count π, 2π, 3π, 4π, and so on. It doesn’t change reality, just the way you count and represent numbers.
I might be off, but it’s definitely not π = 1.
pi equals 10
Easy. Take a wire that is exactly 1 meter long. Form a circle from the wire. The circumference of that circle is 1 meter.
Removed by mod
And this why you don’t touch the thermostat.
“exactly”
uh huh. and how are you measuring that?
I will be measuring it in meters. One. There you go.
Ok, you got another source of water - physicists.
Now the engineers and/or scientists are crying
Scientists maybe, engineering is all about calling things close enough.
Plancks
Exactly. Use a laser measure to cut a plank, then use that for reference!
I don’t have to measure it. I stick under glass and define it as the standard which all other measurements are derived from.
You don’t need to, it’s defined. (Lol). If you take a circle with a circumference of 1, then its circumference will be 1… I think I might have lost some braincells reading this.
He obviously meant to say how do you measure that it’s exactly 1m, even when still in a straight line. Exactly being the key word here.
But is the circumference of the outer circle or inner circle 1m? The wire has a nonzero width.
Prove it.
Pi is 3.
Ah, the Euler identity. 3^i ^3 -1=0
Rofl :D Well, close enough, and about as sexy when a bit drunk.
Also
The lines in this are askew and it’s mildly annoying
They’re there to askew why the logic doesn’t work.
Pi = 4! = 4×3×2 = 24
That approach works for area but not for perimeter, because cutting off the corners gives you a shape whose area is closer to the circle’s, but it doesn’t change the perimeter at all.
Omfg why can’t I figure out why this does not work. Help me pls
Because you never make a circle. You just make a polygon with a perimeter of four and an infinite number of sides as the number of sides approaches infinity.
But if you made a regular polygon, with the number of sides approaching infinity, it would work.
Exactly what I was expecting haha(I mean the video)
It’s a fractal problem, even if you repeat the cutting until infinite, there are still a roughness with little triangles which you must add to Pi, there are no difference between image 4 and 5, the triangles are still there, smaller but more. But it’s a nice illusion.
I think it’s because no matter how many corners you cut it’s still an approximation of the circumference. There’s just an infinite amount of corners that sticks out
There’s just an infinite amount of corners that sticks out
Yes. And that means that it is not an approximation of the circumference.
But it approximates the area of the circle.
True, thanks for the correction
