×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Pi Calculated To Record 2.5 Trillion Digits

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the almost-there dept.

Math 432

Joshua writes "Researchers from Japan have calculated Pi to over 2.5 trillion decimals using the T2K Open Supercomputer (which is currently ranked 47th in the world according to a June, 2009 report from Top500.org). This new number more than doubles the previous record of about 1.2 trillion decimals set in 2002 by another Japanese research team. Unfortunately, there still seems to be no pattern."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

432 comments

Well... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29128373)

Just because nobody has detected a pattern doesn't mean there isn't one.

There is a pattern (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29128399)

The pattern is that Jews did 9/11.

Panties STINK! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29128445)

Panties Stink!
They really, really stink!
Sometimes they're red, sometimes they're green,
Sometimes they're white or black or pink
Sometimes they're satin, sometimes they're lace
Sometimes they're cotton and soak up stains
But at the end of the day, it really makes you think
Wooooooo-wheeeee! Panties stink!

Sometimes they're on the bathroom floor
Your girlfriend- what a whore!
Sometimes they're warm and wet and raw
From beneath the skirt of your mother-in-law
Brownish stains from daily wear
A gusset full of pubic hair
Just make sure your nose is ready
For the tang of a sweat-soaked wedgie
In your hand a pair of drawers
With a funky feminine discharge
Give your nose a rest, fix yourself a drink
cause wooooooo-wheeeeeee! panties stink!

Re:Well... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29128507)

I fail to see how not understanding the word "seems" is insightful.

Re:Well... (5, Interesting)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128581)

Of course there's a pattern, even a simple and elegant one. It's equal to:

4 * (1 -1/3 + 1/5 -1/7 +1/9 -1/11 +1/13 -1/15 etc., etc., etc.)

Just because the pattern doesn't come out pretty in a decimal representation doesn't mean it's not elegant or not a pattern.

I've got an even more simple pattern (5, Funny)

sayfawa (1099071) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128711)

I heard somewhere it's equal to the circumference of a circle divided by it's diameter...

Re:I've got an even more simple pattern (5, Interesting)

LUH 3418 (1429407) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128889)

Well, I'm not a mathematician, but it seems to me that's precisely why there isn't a repetitive pattern in the numerical representation. If there was, that would mean the ratio can be exactly defined by a finite amount of information. It seems to me that asking for a finite decimal represensation of pi is similar to asking someone to exactly represent a circle out of line segments (or to exactly define a circle using a finite set of points). The circumference of the circle is the sum of the length of line segments delineating the circle. The problem is that you need infinitely many of them to exactly define the circle.

Re:I've got an even more simple pattern (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128945)

Well, I'm not a mathematician, but it seems to me that's precisely why there isn't a repetitive pattern in the numerical representation. If there was, that would mean the ratio can be exactly defined by a finite amount of information.

It can be exactly defined by a finite amount of information. And it's not impossible, in general, for a transcendental number to have some sort of pattern in the numerical representation. For instance, the Champernowne constant -- .12345678910111213...

Re:I've got an even more simple pattern (1)

LUH 3418 (1429407) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128981)

Well, how do you define PI using a finite amount of information, exactly? You can write a program that will compute it and store that program using finite storage... But as far as we know, you will need an infinite amount of time to compute it, and the actual ratio will take an infinite number of bits to be stored.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29128813)

Is that (6 * zeta(2)) ^ .5 in disguise, or is it something totally different?

Re:Well... (5, Interesting)

telso (924323) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128835)

I always found the Basel problem to be the most elegant converging series involving pi (being the square root of six times the sum of the reciprocals of the squares), probably because there are so many (elegant) proofs of this [ex.ac.uk] (pdf), because it's so simple to understand yet not so simple to prove on a cursory inspection, and because it's the specific case that generalized to one of the most important unsolved problems in mathematics [wikipedia.org].

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29128647)

Just because nobody has detected a pattern doesn't mean there isn't one.

No the reason there is no pattern is because God is capable of generating a number to infinite precision. Either that or She prefers using fractions to decimals.

Re:Well... (1, Funny)

nacturation (646836) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128997)

Just because nobody has detected a pattern doesn't mean there isn't one.

Don't you think that's an irrational conclusion?

Congratulations! (4, Funny)

Petersko (564140) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128385)

These researchers are now in possession of the most useless piece of information in science.

3.14 was very useful. 3.1415? Even more so. But after that it's diminishing returns, baby. 2.5 trillion digits? Good heavens. Of course it never repeats - we kind of knew that already.

Pointless mathematical dick-sizing. Problem is, this dick is so huge no vagina will ever make use of it.

Re:Congratulations! (3, Funny)

AnonGCB (1398517) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128401)

I hear those black hole's are pretty loose, and CERN is working on one so who knows, maybe it will be used.

Re:Congratulations! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29128749)

That's racist!

... oh wait

If you find a singularity "pretty loose" (2, Funny)

dizzydogg (127440) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128955)

having effectively zero size, your girlfriend must wish you were throwing a hotdog through the halway :P

Re:Congratulations! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29128453)

The point is that someday, a computer instructed to compute pi indefinitely will simply respond, "Why don't you just go fuck yourself?" Then we'll know that the machine has achieved sentience.

Re:Congratulations! (5, Funny)

Snarfangel (203258) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128497)

The point is that someday, a computer instructed to compute pi indefinitely will simply respond, "Why don't you just go fuck yourself?" Then we'll know that the machine has achieved sentience.

I'd be even more impressed if it said "Sure thing, I'll get right on it!" and then pretended to work while surfing the web.

Re:Congratulations! (5, Funny)

east coast (590680) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128865)

I'd be even more impressed if it said "Sure thing, I'll get right on it!" and then pretended to work while surfing the web.

Hey! That's my job.

They make a machine to take every job. Before I know it they'll have a machine loafing at the corner bar, smoking cigarettes and downing Jim Beam and Coke like it was water.

Re:Congratulations! (2, Funny)

Sark666 (756464) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128739)

It'll say, "Don't bother me, I'm working on that entropy problem. But don't worry, I'm still collecting data."

Re:Congratulations! (2, Funny)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128887)

If the computer were really smart, it would say, "Interesting. Yes, I can do that, but it will take some time. Seven and a half million years." Then it will relax while appearing to give the problem deep thought.

Re:Congratulations! (0, Troll)

bh_doc (930270) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128495)

I feel exactly the same way, only about that guy who ran 100m really fast earlier this week, and many other sports events too.

Re:Congratulations! (1)

Architect_sasyr (938685) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128959)

Except that the ability to run 100m really fast is an enhancement we will eventually want to give to our soldiers before we run them off to Planet P to capture the brain. (Side Note: I want to see how fast we can get people to run *with* performance enhancers made legal)

On the other hand the ability to calculate pi just proves that we have a computer capable of making a vast number of calculations. I could well run the same numbers through my GPU - it just might take a little longer - to prove the same thing.

Re:Congratulations! (2, Interesting)

SpottedKuh (855161) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128513)

Of course it never repeats - we kind of knew that already.

You're absolutely right: pi is irrational, and as such, there won't be any repeats. However, that doesn't mean there isn't a pattern. For example, 0.12112111211112111112... is irrational, but there's a clear pattern that you could extend to an infinite number of digits. Does such a pattern exist once you get to a certain number of digits in pi? We don't know.

Re:Congratulations! (3, Insightful)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128663)

Of course it never repeats - we kind of knew that already.

Goodness me, so many holes in this.

Firstly, just because something isn't repeating doesn't mean there isn't a pattern.
1,2,4,8 isn't repeating, but the pattern is there. (Each number doubles the previous)
1,1.5,2.25,3.375 also doesn't repeat but there is a pattern.(Each number is the previous number plus half the previous number)

Knowing (thinking) that something doesn't repeat and PROVING that it doesn't repeat are two ENTIRELY different things. I am guessing your maths/science education either stopped very early or you didn't do too well in either.

If they found out there was a pattern, would I make a change in my life tomorrow? Nope. Am I glad they are actually doing something like this? Yes. Physics, chemistry and mathematics research fields are very much interested in "pure" research. However, the funding behind them generally has excellent applications in mind that we don't know about.

So perhaps, rather than just mocking it and blowing it off, think back to all the other useless research done by people and what it has paid off. How about a simple transistor. Current goes one way, there are two ways out depending on an ON/OFF choice. Useless huh? Really useless. Can't think of a damn application for that at all.

Rebuttal (0)

Petersko (564140) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128717)

"Knowing (thinking) that something doesn't repeat and PROVING that it doesn't repeat are two ENTIRELY different things. I am guessing your maths/science education either stopped very early or you didn't do too well in either. If they found out there was a pattern, would I make a change in my life tomorrow? Nope. Am I glad they are actually doing something like this? Yes. Physics, chemistry and mathematics research fields are very much interested in "pure" research. However, the funding behind them generally has excellent applications in mind that we don't know about."

My sciences are fine, thanks for asking. Even if you didn't ask, but chose to infer otherwise. Better than my math, but I know enough to understand they're looking for some pattern.

I have no beef with pure research at all. In fact, I'm in favour of it for the reason you mention - you never know what application some theoretical tidbit will have. However, they've brute-forced out 2.5 trillion digits with pure computing power, and I highly doubt they've actually completed meaningful pattern-searching on any significant portion of that. As you pointed out, the patterns can be, well, anything.

So, other than showing off, why aren't they redirecting all of that computational horsepower with dealing with the first trillion digits? They may have missed the "transistor" already.

Re:Rebuttal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29128905)

One day, someone's gonna see it out of nowhere in the first 100 digits, and shit their pants laughing at everyone else.

Re:Congratulations! (5, Informative)

daver00 (1336845) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128737)

We know without a doubt that it never repeats - if it did it would be a rational number, it has been proven to be an irrational number, moreso it is transcendental. We also know the exact pattern, take the taylor series of sin about pi/4, you get an elegant and simple series solution for pi.

That is not the point. The point is and exercise in computing, everything we do in computing involves rational numbers only (floats) and there is substantial error involved with this. It is computationally difficult to deal with large numbers, hence any method to do this more effectively is a gain for science.

Re:Congratulations! (1)

sys.stdout.write (1551563) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128897)

We know an exact pattern. This could conceivably reveal another representation.

But yes, In general I agree that this is largely for the benefit of computer science and not mathematics.

Re:Congratulations! (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128775)

If there are interesting patterns in Pi, it'll be discovered through analytical research, not calculating digits out to some indeterminate end. I mean honestly, do they think the 2.5 trillion and one digit is going to hold the secret to one of the simplest shapes in mathematics?

Re:Congratulations! (1)

sys.stdout.write (1551563) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128931)

No, but you may be surprised at how much mathematics is done computationally today. Many number theorists, for instance, spend an inordinate amount of time writing computer programs with the general intention of finding the answer first and determining the reason (i.e. proving it) second.

Re:Congratulations! (5, Insightful)

sys.stdout.write (1551563) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128833)

Knowing (thinking) that something doesn't repeat and PROVING that it doesn't repeat are two ENTIRELY different things. I am guessing your maths/science education either stopped very early or you didn't do too well in either.

I think it's funny that you are insulting someone's math education immediately after you imply that no proof exists showing pi not to repeat.

Please don't mod me up, except maybe +1 funny (2, Funny)

Petersko (564140) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128809)

While I think that the computing horsepower was misdirected (covered elsewhere), and the last trillion digits could have waited, this post is mostly here for me to be arrogantly dismissive and make dick / vagina jokes.

Of course there's a pattern! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29128405)

Otherwise how would you calculate it? The "pattern" is it matches the stream of digits produced by a simple algorithm!

Re:Of course there's a pattern! (1)

redmid17 (1217076) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128727)

The pattern is actually the Japanese calculating how many variations of hentai porn they can make. schoolgirls^tentacle power

Linux is for fat nerds (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29128425)

Lol Linux zealots getting butthurt.

After 2.5 trillion decimals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29128431)

...they discovered the answer was pumpkin.

Too few digits yet for the pattern to be found... (0)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128441)

You need to calculate it to at least 2 Betillion digits before you actually can confirm the pattern...

100 years from now... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29128457)

Researchers will find that Pi begins to repeat after 2,500,000,000,001 digits.

No pattern = a very good thing (1, Insightful)

Tmack (593755) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128459)

Otherwise it would mean other non-predictable numbers could actually be predictable, potentially make breaking cryptography easier (much like finding out that a prime really isnt), would generally disrupt a bunch of mathematical theorems probably pissing off a whole sect of mathematicians, and turn a lot of things we think we know upside down.

Re:No pattern = a very good thing (2, Informative)

Taikutusu (1479335) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128681)

Cryptography has nothing to do with a prime "not being a prime". It's to do with quick factorization of primes.

Besides, I don't see why pi having any sort of repeating pattern would disrupt any theorems. I honestly can't think of any theorem that requires such a thing. Irrational and transcendental yes, but no repeating decimal pattern?

Maybe you can enlighten me to such a theorem.

Re:No pattern = a very good thing (2, Funny)

daver00 (1336845) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128799)

Ahhh! what is wrong with you geeks! Hand in your cards, all of you.

There is an extremely simple pattern to pi, just not in base10 decimal expansion. Its already been said but here we go:

pi = 4(1-1/3+1/5-1/7+1/9-1/11+...)

Mathematicians were all over this stuff years ago, try to think about what the implications of this are for precision in scientific computing.

Re:No pattern = a very good thing (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128819)

Wrong. At multiple levels. First of all, no form of cryptography relies on the digits of Pi not having a "pattern"(whatever that means). There is cryptography that relies on the conjecture (note, not theorem, but conjecture) that factoring numbers into primes is difficult. More specially, it is conjectured that factorization cannot be done in polynomial time. However, there's nothing at all connected to the digits of Pi, nor is there is anything connected numbers that one might think are prime that aren't. Please don't damage the signal to noise ratio on Slashdot further. It already has enough problems.

No one needs more than 50 digits (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29128463)

A nice little article on why it's useless to know pi to more than 50 digits in this universe.
http://everything2.com/title/Too%2520small%2520a%2520Universe%2520to%2520memorize%2520Pi

Re:No one needs more than 50 digits (4, Insightful)

kipling (24579) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128919)

So you are criticising my preparation for the afterlife? Other people memorise wodges of religious texts, I choose to memorise digits of pi ...

wouldn't it be awesome (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128465)

if they found a repeat at say, 3 trillion digits?*

just so that certain science/ math completists/ perfectionists, who would consider it their duty to know pi exactly, their brains would explode in an attempt to remember the digits

(*i don't think it is possible for pi to repeat at all, i think pi's irrationality is essential to what pi represents)

That is.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29128477)

A lot of pi

Question about Pi and circles. . . (3, Interesting)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128481)

Since Pi is irrational, does that mean that a "perfect" circle cannot actually exist? If you don't understand my question, think about it like this. Let's say I want to construct a circle of radius R. To create a "perfect" circle, it seems like I would need a length of material to build the circle out of that was exactly 2*Pi*R, but since Pi is irrational, it seems that you could never actually get any length which is an exact multiple of Pi? If Pi really expands out infinitely, even a circle with a radius the size of a galaxy, or a cluster of galaxies, could never be *exactly* the right length?

Re:Question about Pi and circles. . . (1)

wjhoffman1983 (1145155) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128509)

It can exist, it just cannot be put in numerical form.

Re:Question about Pi and circles. . . (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128555)

But to construct the circumference perfectly, wouldn't you have to have a fraction of an atom in the perimeter somewhere?

Re:Question about Pi and circles. . . (5, Insightful)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128585)

To travel from one point to another, an object must pass through all the points in between. There are an infinite number of points "in between," thus to move at all, an object must travel through an infinite number of points in a finite time. Clearly this definition of reality is flawed: stop using it.

Re:Question about Pi and circles. . . (1)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128785)

To travel from one point to another, an object must pass through all the points in between. There are an infinite number of points "in between," thus to move at all, an object must travel through an infinite number of points in a finite time. Clearly this definition of reality is flawed: stop using it.

Actually, I don't think the GP mentioned travelling at all!

Re:Question about Pi and circles. . . (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29128963)

Not necessarily. We can't really know about anything smaller than the Planck length, so in practical terms your paradox probably fails. The universe may be discrete on those scales.

Re:Question about Pi and circles. . . (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128957)

You're assuming that the circumference of a circle will always have an irrational length. Not so. There's no reason you couldn't have a circle with a circumference of exactly one meter. Of course, to do so it would have to have a radius of irrational length, but you can't have everything.

Re:Question about Pi and circles. . . (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29128539)

It's nothing to do with Pi. You can't even make a stick of exactly 1cm length.

Re:Question about Pi and circles. . . (5, Funny)

e9th (652576) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128563)

I've constructed a perfect circle, with a circumference of 1 meter. It's the diameter I'm having trouble with.

Re:Question about Pi and circles. . . (1)

Jared555 (874152) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128569)

It would be impossible to create a circle with exactly the circumference you wanted based on the radius/diameter.

The ability to create a perfectly shaped circle is a whole other issue as the atoms that make up that circle are constantly moving.

Re:Question about Pi and circles. . . (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128573)

If I use a base Pi number system, then a circle of radius 1 will simply have a circumference of 20. It's just our inferior number system that holds us back.

Re:Question about Pi and circles. . . (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128811)

Question for the mathematicians... Can it really be proven that Pi is irrational or did it just get that reputation since it is a number that has no known end? I understand that from the laws and proofs of maths certain numbers can't exist as rational numbers (the sqr root of a negative) but Pi, in my limited knowledge of math, doesn't seem to fit into that. Is there an easy way to determine if a number is irrational?

Re:Question about Pi and circles. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29128941)

Yes, there are proofs that Ï is irrational. Furthermore it is also proven to be transcendental, that it it is not a root of any rational polynomial. If you want to see the proofs, just look it up in the Wikipedia.

Re:Question about Pi and circles. . . (1)

daver00 (1336845) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128943)

No.

This is just zeno's paradox in disguise, if it were the case you could therefore never move from point a to point b and achilles could never catch up to the turtle.

Re:Question about Pi and circles. . . (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128983)

If you don't understand my question, think about it like this. Let's say I want to construct a circle of radius R. To create a "perfect" circle, it seems like I would need a length of material to build the circle out of that was exactly 2*Pi*R, but since Pi is irrational, it seems that you could never actually get any length which is an exact multiple of Pi?

In an ideal world? Just take a unit of material and roll it into a circle. You'll never be able to measure the radius exactly, but you'll have your circle.

In the real world, no material will be able to have a length which is exactly measurable anyway, so there's no point in worrying about it.

Definitions (1)

eyepeepackets (33477) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128489)

Perhaps value derives from the lack of pattern in this particular instance. Some math junkie might look at the problem from that point of view and see what pops up.

The pattern. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29128503)

Of course there's a pattern. I mean, otherwise, I wouldn't be able to match it with 3.[0-9]{1,}

Re:The pattern. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29128741)

While your pattern is valid, you probably should write it as this: 3\.\d+

Well, (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29128537)

I'm glad our supercomputers are being used for this, rather than some impractical usage like, say, curing cancer.

Re:Well, (2, Insightful)

east coast (590680) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128751)

I'm glad there is more than one computer.

Ever stopped to think that throwing more computing power at a problem is about as productive as throwing more money at a problem or more man power? You can only do so much before an effort becomes either redundant or the return on investment is as dismal as the stock market has been this past year.

I don't honestly know what the practical value of knowing Pi to the 2.5 trillionth digit is but I'd like to think that there are enough resources in play that the fight for cancer isn't going to miss this one.

No pattern in base 10 (1)

careysb (566113) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128567)

How about a pattern appearing when Pi is expressed in another base?

Re:No pattern in base 10 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29128665)

How about a pattern appearing when Pi is expressed in another base?

Brilliant! How about we use base Pi? Then Pi is simply 10.

Or (1)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128571)

Perhaps there is a pattern but our minds are not advanced enough to discern one? We might be able to develop computer algorithms to search for patterns as well, but those are ultimately limited by our capacity to program intelligent software.

But Captain Janeway's command code stil works... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29128607)

She just says Pi Alpha so with voice recognition why the hell does it matter!

PI is NOT a Number (0)

wrfelts (950027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128635)

PI is a formula that describes a relationship of measurements regarding a circle. The problem being that we know imprecisely the results of that formula without knowing the formula. The search for a repetitive pattern (to help define the formula) in the result is, thus far, proving unproductive. I would wager to guess that, at over 2.5T digits, a found repetition will still not help. Typically, an answer for something this daunting will be far simpler than expected and come from a kid or young adult from the least expected country on the planet. I look forward to that jaw-dropping, Homer Simpson quoting day.

Re:PI is NOT a Number (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29128773)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_number

Wrong base... (1)

RazorJ_2000 (164431) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128675)

They can't find a pattern because they're doing their calculations using base 10. They should expand their minds and try using another base, perhaps 2. I bet there's a pattern using binary!!

Re:Wrong base... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29128921)

That's how I calculated Pi exactly... it's 1 in Base Pi. Just don't ask me to convert it into another base.

Is that all? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29128683)

2.5 Trillion digits?

That's nothing. Chuck Norris knows the last digit.

perhaps the digits of pi form a fractal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29128697)

Of course, someone must have thought of that already and if it were a fractal we'd have heard about it.

(I'll go have a look in google but if anyone else has heard of this being tried they can leave a note here.)

alchemists of the 21th century? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29128735)

It be somewhat humorous (or not) if PI analytically in fact did not have a pattern, and we have a lot of pocket protector types spending a career searching.

Storing it (1)

Scienceman123 (1366877) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128789)

Wolfram Alpha spits out 2.27373675443232059478759765625 TB as the required space in ASCII. I suppose if done in base-256, it could be done in much less. Anyone feel like figuring it out?

I mean, c'mon America (1)

lessthanpi (1333061) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128797)

This spring, brace yourself for the most thrilling race of all time. The race to 2.5 trillion digits.

Japanese Pi

3.14.15

To all those who think pi may have a pattern (1)

cafelatte (99544) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128837)

Sorry to burst your bubbles but pi is an irrational [wikipedia.org] number so it's impossible for it to have a pattern.

Pi does have many patterns. (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128851)

First of all, Pi appears to be normal (that is the digits actually meet certain statistical tests for randomness). That is a pattern in some sense. In any event, digits to any base (even base 2 or base 3) are in many ways a very artificial way of thinking about numbers. A far more natural way is to represent numbers as continued fractions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continued_fraction [wikipedia.org], When considering generalized continued fractions, Pi has a variety of different very elegant patterns.

Rational PI FYI (2, Funny)

NCamero (35481) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128923)

FYI
The reason the Babylonians, and the Egyptians, and we use 360 degrees is this:

355/113 = 3.14159292035
pi `= 3.14159265359

A difference of 8.5x10-6%

Which makes 355/113 close enough to pi. 360 is close to 355 which is why we use 360 degrees for angles and time.

There is a pattern (3, Interesting)

SolusSD (680489) | more than 4 years ago | (#29128937)

The pattern just isn't in base 10. It's in base e. Why does anyone expect to see a numerical pattern in an arbitrary number base like 10? Just because we have 10 fingers doesn't make it the "correct" base for anything.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...