Maths Fans - Pi

Are women a mystery to you? Post your thoughts here.

Moderator: Silent One

User avatar
mostirreverent
Transcendent Poster
 
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 6:29 am
Location: Boston, MA USA

Postby mostirreverent on Thu May 26, 2005 5:33 am

Raymond-Bergman wrote:
mostirreverent wrote:is a circle not and a polygone whose sides are infinite in number. if so, then by definition, how can Pi be and approximation? if a monkey is on a cross, pi has something to do with his tail. all hail Jessie Helms and Jerry Falwell

good movie BTW.


Wow two real rarities in this thread!

The solution to pi and a post from MI with no mention of <A HREF="http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/catalog/default.php/cPath/23_64_255">Anal</A>.

Its to be applauded!!


Ah, chocolate pie, my favorite. Now ther’s a math fact I can get "behind". No wonder the greeks were so hot for geometry. Uclit? I think not so much. sorry if i was obtuse. hopefully LLA will think i'm acute yank.
Last edited by mostirreverent on Thu May 26, 2005 5:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
I haven't a particle of confidence in a man who has no redeeming petty vices.
Mark Twain

A place for everything, and everything all about the place.
Mosty
Me in the Flesh

User avatar
mostirreverent
Transcendent Poster
 
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 6:29 am
Location: Boston, MA USA

Postby mostirreverent on Thu May 26, 2005 5:38 am

Buffyphile wrote:Due to the fact that all parts of the circumference are equidistant from the centre, otherwise it is not a circle but a polygon, there is a known change in all dimensions equally with the movement in the dimension of any dimension of the radius or circumference.

That is to say if you change the radii of the object in order to accommodate the change the circumference has to move away from the centre yet still remain intact so has to move by an equal proportion.

Pi itself is used as a measure to determine this proportional change as it can't be represented as a real number (3.142 is an approximation) to be accurate Pi goes to hundreds of decimal places but the number used will give a good enough result for most people.


Ah, but "real" in this case is a misnomer. It does not mean it is and approximation, just not neat or repeating (yet), or whole. With some imagination, you may even be able to take the square of a negative number. I can’t believe I remembered that.
I haven't a particle of confidence in a man who has no redeeming petty vices.
Mark Twain

A place for everything, and everything all about the place.
Mosty
Me in the Flesh

User avatar
long-leggedy-annie
Regent Empress
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 10:45 am
Location: UK - Hampshire

Postby long-leggedy-annie on Thu May 26, 2005 8:11 am

mostirreverent wrote:hopefully LLA will think i'm acute yank.
didn't know you spoke cockney rhyming slang Mosty :lol:
First FemaleFirst Guru

Help!! I'm being chased by Ickettes - it must be a conspiracy

Buffyphile
Wet behind the ears
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 10:43 pm
Location: UK

Postby Buffyphile on Thu May 26, 2005 7:22 pm

mostirreverent wrote:
Ah, but "real" in this case is a misnomer. It does not mean it is and approximation, just not neat or repeating (yet), or whole. With some imagination, you may even be able to take the square of a negative number. I can’t believe I remembered that.


Unfortunately I made the mistake of posting with my "Mathematics Geek" head on and not explaining the use of real numbers. I shall now go and solve some trigonometry and quadratic equations as punishment.

427v8
Just warming up
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 4:16 pm

Postby 427v8 on Fri May 27, 2005 12:51 am

mostirreverent wrote:
Buffyphile wrote:Due to the fact that all parts of the circumference are equidistant from the centre, otherwise it is not a circle but a polygon, there is a known change in all dimensions equally with the movement in the dimension of any dimension of the radius or circumference.

That is to say if you change the radii of the object in order to accommodate the change the circumference has to move away from the centre yet still remain intact so has to move by an equal proportion.

Pi itself is used as a measure to determine this proportional change as it can't be represented as a real number (3.142 is an approximation) to be accurate Pi goes to hundreds of decimal places but the number used will give a good enough result for most people.


Ah, but "real" in this case is a misnomer. It does not mean it is and approximation, just not neat or repeating (yet), or whole. With some imagination, you may even be able to take the square of a negative number. I can’t believe I remembered that.


Your right Pi is not an approximation, but we have only approximated it, Semantics!

I know people that have memorised Pi to over 100 places. it has been calculated to millions of places.

It takes no 'imagination' to take the square root of a negative number, although you do need to use imaginary numbers. Interesting paradox there...

For example the square root of -1 is 'i'

You know I thought this was a sex topic board :lol:
Keith

Raymond-Bergman
Mahatma
 
Posts: 1105
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 6:47 pm
Location: YorkShire England

Postby Raymond-Bergman on Fri May 27, 2005 12:54 pm

427v8 wrote:You know I thought this was a sex topic board :lol:


We are an educated bunch!
*Officially FF's best poster

*The above may or may not be true

5's the name of the game

User avatar
mostirreverent
Transcendent Poster
 
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 6:29 am
Location: Boston, MA USA

Postby mostirreverent on Sat May 28, 2005 5:03 am

427v8 wrote:
mostirreverent wrote:
Buffyphile wrote:Due to the fact that all parts of the circumference are equidistant from the centre, otherwise it is not a circle but a polygon, there is a known change in all dimensions equally with the movement in the dimension of any dimension of the radius or circumference.

That is to say if you change the radii of the object in order to accommodate the change the circumference has to move away from the centre yet still remain intact so has to move by an equal proportion.

Pi itself is used as a measure to determine this proportional change as it can't be represented as a real number (3.142 is an approximation) to be accurate Pi goes to hundreds of decimal places but the number used will give a good enough result for most people.


Ah, but "real" in this case is a misnomer. It does not mean it is and approximation, just not neat or repeating (yet), or whole. With some imagination, you may even be able to take the square of a negative number. I can’t believe I remembered that.


Your right Pi is not an approximation, but we have only approximated it, Semantics!

I know people that have memorised Pi to over 100 places. it has been calculated to millions of places.

It takes no 'imagination' to take the square root of a negative number, although you do need to use imaginary numbers. Interesting paradox there...

For example the square root of -1 is 'i'



that is what i meant. i couldn't believe that i remembered how to get it.
I haven't a particle of confidence in a man who has no redeeming petty vices.
Mark Twain

A place for everything, and everything all about the place.
Mosty
Me in the Flesh

Guest
 

Postby Guest on Sun Jun 08, 2008 9:44 pm

mosti :wub:

Guest
 

Re: Maths Fans - Pi

Postby Guest on Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:32 am

Raymond-Bergman wrote:Ok we all know that Pi is 3.142.....

But how did early maths bods know that the ratio of circumference to diameter was the same for all circles?

Its something thats puzzled me for a long time, anyone have a clue?


This is no proof that will give you the value of Pi. There is, however, proofs that will show that Pi is a so-called transcendental number, meaning that it is a number without end and which never repeats. As such, it can never be represented by a ratio of integers. Only transcendental numbers are the square root of 2, Euler's number, e, and a fascinating number called omega, or Chaitin's constant.


The proofs are often elegent and quite invovlved but often surprisingly simple as well. For instance, showing that the square root of 2 is transcendental take no more than a handful of lines.

As for calculating the values of any transcendental, this is a computational task, and hence requires large amounts of computer processing time to achieve high percission of accuracy and large decimal place values.

As for the early mathematical inquisitive minds who "calculated" the value of Pi, it was essentially done experimentally. The ancient Egyptians, for example, literally would take varying lengths of rope, which they fastened to a pole and trace out a perfect circle, whose circumfrance they they measured with yet another rope. They then determned the ratips of the circumfrance to the diameter and found that that they were getting the "same" number, with one perplexing finding: as they increased the length of their rope to trace the circles, they found that they got ever more changing, trailing number. They simply didn't understand that Pi was a number that could never be calculated, even though it is a constant. Although its value is fixed, only the next decimal place can be obtained, one decimale place at a time, computationally. The "computational" method was ropes, men, sand, slates, and brain power.

It was the Greeks that forwent the physical experimenting with math and sat time and came up with what would become what we call today "proofs:" the showing of the truth of a statement in a particular context that often illuminates a larger generality or underlying struture or truth. In this case, the Greek proved that all circles, regardless of the length of their radius, are associated with the same constant, and moreoever that this constant had the strange property of never ending with any repetition and hence never able to be determined in totality, as their is an infinite number of decimal values.

Pi has a wonderful history and you should go to Wikipedia or get hold of the wonderful book The Story of Numbers by John Mcleish.

Incidentally, it was not the ancient Greeks that assigned the Greek symbol of Pi to the constant, but rather the 18th century English mathematician William Jones.

Wonderful questions you asked! I hope your interest in math burgeon, as math is a wonderful, worthwhile pursuit that has many benefits regardless of your career choice.

All the best. :)

Guest
 

Re: Maths Fans - Pi

Postby Guest on Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:55 am

. wrote:
Raymond-Bergman wrote:Ok we all know that Pi is 3.142.....

But how did early maths bods know that the ratio of circumference to diameter was the same for all circles?

Its something thats puzzled me for a long time, anyone have a clue?


This is no proof that will give you the value of Pi. There is, however, proofs that will show that Pi is a so-called transcendental number, meaning that it is a number without end and which never repeats. As such, it can never be represented by a ratio of integers. Only transcendental numbers are the square root of 2, Euler's number, e, and a fascinating number called omega, or Chaitin's constant.


The proofs are often elegent and quite invovlved but often surprisingly simple as well. For instance, showing that the square root of 2 is transcendental take no more than a handful of lines.

As for calculating the values of any transcendental, this is a computational task, and hence requires large amounts of computer processing time to achieve high percission of accuracy and large decimal place values.

As for the early mathematical inquisitive minds who "calculated" the value of Pi, it was essentially done experimentally. The ancient Egyptians, for example, literally would take varying lengths of rope, which they fastened to a pole and trace out a perfect circle, whose circumfrance they they measured with yet another rope. They then determned the ratips of the circumfrance to the diameter and found that that they were getting the "same" number, with one perplexing finding: as they increased the length of their rope to trace the circles, they found that they got ever more changing, trailing number. They simply didn't understand that Pi was a number that could never be calculated, even though it is a constant. Although its value is fixed, only the next decimal place can be obtained, one decimale place at a time, computationally. The "computational" method was ropes, men, sand, slates, and brain power.

It was the Greeks that forwent the physical experimenting with math and sat time and came up with what would become what we call today "proofs:" the showing of the truth of a statement in a particular context that often illuminates a larger generality or underlying struture or truth. In this case, the Greek proved that all circles, regardless of the length of their radius, are associated with the same constant, and moreoever that this constant had the strange property of never ending with any repetition and hence never able to be determined in totality, as their is an infinite number of decimal values.

Pi has a wonderful history and you should go to Wikipedia or get hold of the wonderful book The Story of Numbers by John Mcleish.

Incidentally, it was not the ancient Greeks that assigned the Greek symbol of Pi to the constant, but rather the 18th century English mathematician William Jones.

Wonderful questions you asked! I hope your interest in math burgeon, as math is a wonderful, worthwhile pursuit that has many benefits regardless of your career choice.

All the best. :)


I made a silly error with this sentence: "Only transcendental numbers are the square root of 2, Euler's number, e, and a fascinating number called omega, or Chaitin's constant"

These are NOT the only transcendental numbers. There are many more. In fact there are an infinate number of transcendental numbers.

User avatar
mostirreverent
Transcendent Poster
 
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 6:29 am
Location: Boston, MA USA

Postby mostirreverent on Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:12 am

In fact there are an infinite number of ALL numbers, including all even and odd numbers. The odd thing is that the whole set of numbers in infinite, and it is composed of two sets (one odd and one even), each of which are infinite. So infinite plus infinite is infinite. Talk about a paradox (or some other like word). You would think one is twice as infinite somehow.
I haven't a particle of confidence in a man who has no redeeming petty vices.
Mark Twain

A place for everything, and everything all about the place.
Mosty
Me in the Flesh

Guest
 

Postby Guest on Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:41 am

Some questions have more than one answer, others have no answer.

User avatar
DanMc
M'Lady
 
Posts: 2286
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:52 pm
Location: UK

Postby DanMc on Sat Jun 14, 2008 4:40 pm

One of life's mysteries is why anyone would spend their time trawling through 3 year old posts, find one about Pi and bump it with :wub:

I find the easiest way to think of Pi is 22/7, but if you want to know more than any reasonable person needs to know and don't mind a headache this should do
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi

User avatar
mostirreverent
Transcendent Poster
 
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 6:29 am
Location: Boston, MA USA

Postby mostirreverent on Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:29 am

DanMc wrote:One of life's mysteries is why anyone would spend their time trawling through 3 year old posts, find one about Pi and bump it with :wub:

I find the easiest way to think of Pi is 22/7, but if you want to know more than any reasonable person needs to know and don't mind a headache this should do
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi


here are some of my thoughts on the subject, in "God and Math"
I haven't a particle of confidence in a man who has no redeeming petty vices.
Mark Twain

A place for everything, and everything all about the place.
Mosty
Me in the Flesh

User avatar
DanMc
M'Lady
 
Posts: 2286
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:52 pm
Location: UK

Postby DanMc on Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:14 pm

mostirreverent wrote:
http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=79547&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
here are some of my thoughts on the subject, in "God and Math"

That's one long and complex thread!
I wonder where all those super intelligent guests went to - Time Travel, Stephen Hawking, base 16 maths, intersections and time holes, quantum level, Thurston model geometry (I had to google that one!)
It's a far cry from the "fit men with big cocks" stuff :)

PreviousNext

Return to Just for Men

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest