![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
3.
1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679 8214808651 3282306647 0938446095 5058223172 5359408128 4811174502 8410270193 8521105559 6446229489 5493038196 4428810975 6659334461 2847564823 3786783165 2712019091 4564856692 3460348610 4543266482 1339360726 024914127 7245870066 0631558817 4881520920 9628292540 9171536436 7892590360 0113305305 4882046652 1384146951 9415116094
Hope you don't mind, I redid the digits in groups of ten to make the point more clear. -- Glenn L ( talk) 01:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
heres one million decimals: http://robin1232.110mb.com/pi.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.99.248 ( talk) 12:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I've rearranged the images a bit to try and improve the format. Previously, there was a lot of white space in the text, some text was blocked out by images, and the images at the top of the article looked a bit ugly. I also added some info about the Old Testament. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted the bare claim that the Old Testament claims pi equals 3, but I agree that the issue should be dealt with (surprised it isn't already — should look through the history and see if it's been removed at some point). What it actually says is that some king (I think it was) made a "molten sea" ten cubits across, and thirty cubits did compass it round about, something like that. To get from there to "pi equals three" involves several questionable steps of logic. -- Trovatore ( talk) 05:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The usual word for "length" is קו, which has a Gematria number of 106. However, in this passage, the word is קוה, which has a Gematria number of 111. So this suggests a value of 3 × 111 ÷ 106, which gives the value 3.1415 to four decimal places. (Collin237) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.168.155 ( talk) 14:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Let's consider this: "And it was a handbreadth thick; and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, like the flower of a lily: it received and held three thousand baths."(2Ch 4:5) Does it mean that also 2*2 wasn't 4, but something else? Was the volumetric calculation also inprecise or just the vessel wasn't full to the maximum?
Seriously though, if you have a cup of coffe and the distance "from brim to brim" is given, does it mean that the cup cannot be compassed around with shorter string than Pi * brim-to-brim? What if the cup isn't perfectly cylindrical in shape? I mean we don't drink with cups like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measuring_cup, we rather use these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nice_Cup_of_Tea.jpg. I think Pi is more relevant to shapes like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cylinder_%28geometry%29, not like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily.
Please consider thoughtfully the above reasoning and, if you will, edit to the best possible.
I see that there is some disagreement about what image should go at top. I like it this way, with a large Greek letter pi at the top. What do others think? The table looks kind of ugly, and if you go to the link I just gave, you'll see that the table is broken up into two pieces, each located lower down in the article (one is in the section on "Estimating pi" and the other is in the "See also" section). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 10:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
3.
1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679 8214808651 3282306647 0938446095 5058223172 5359408128 4811174502 8410270193 8521105559 6446229489 5493038196 4428810975 6659334461 2847564823 3786783165 2712019091 4564856692 3460348610 4543266482 1339360726 0249141273 7245870066 0631558817 4881520920 9628292540 9171536436 7892590360 0113305305 4882046652 1384146951 9415116094 3305727036 5759591953 0921861173 8193261179 3105118548 0744623799 6274956735 1885752724 8912279381 8301194912 9833673362 4406566430 8602139494 6395224737 1907021798 6094370277 0539217176 2931767523 8467481846 7669405132 0005681271 4526356082 7785771342 7577896091 7363717872 1468440901 2249534301 4654958537 1050792279 6892589235 4201995611 2129021960 8640344181 5981362977 4771309960 5187072113 4 999999837 2978049951 0597317328 1609631859 5024459455 3469083026 4252230825 3344685035 2619311881 7101000313 7838752886 5875332083 8142061717 7669147303 5982534904 2875546873 1159562863 8823537875 9375195778 1857780532 1712268066 1300192787 6611195909 2164201989 3809525720 1065485863 2788659361 5338182796 8230301952 0353018529 6899577362 2599413891 2497217752 8347913151 5574857242 4541506959 Pi to 1120 digits was first obtained using a gear-driven calculator in 1948, by
John Wrench and Levi Smith. This was the last, best estimate before electronic computers took over.[FN] FN: Wrench, John. "The evolution of extended decimal approximations to π", The Mathematics Teacher, volume 53, pages 644–650 (1960). |
---|
Here’s a new template, analogous to
the one for “e”. If there is no objection, what I would like to do is put the image of the mosaic at the top of the article, immediately followed by the new template. The table currently at the top of the article would be put lower in the article as done
here. I also think that the box with pi to a thousand places would be okay in the section on "Estimating π".
{{
Π (mathematical constant)}}
Anythingyouwant (
talk)
20:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The table of pi to 1120 digits looks messed up on my monitor. There's only ten digits in the second row. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
3.
1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679 8214808651 3282306647 0938446095 5058223172 5359408128 4811174502 8410270193 8521105559 6446229489 5493038196 4428810975 6659334461 2847564823 3786783165 2712019091 4564856692 3460348610 4543266482 1339360726 0249141273 7245870066 0631558817 4881520920 9628292540 9171536436 7892590360 0113305305 4882046652 1384146951 9415116094 3305727036 5759591953 0921861173 8193261179 3105118548 0744623799 6274956735 1885752724 8912279381 8301194912 9833673362 4406566430 8602139494 6395224737 1907021798 6094370277 0539217176 2931767523 8467481846 7669405132 0005681271 4526356082 7785771342 7577896091 7363717872 1468440901 2249534301 4654958537 1050792279 6892589235 4201995611 2129021960 8640344181 5981362977 4771309960 5187072113 4 999999837 2978049951 0597317328 1609631859 5024459455 3469083026 4252230825 3344685035 2619311881 7101000313 7838752886 5875332083 8142061717 7669147303 5982534904 2875546873 1159562863 8823537875 9375195778 1857780532 1712268066 1300192787 6611195909 2164201989 3809525720 1065485863 2788659361 5338182796 8230301952 0353018529 6899577362 2599413891 2497217752 8347913151 5574857242 4541506959 Pi to 1120 digits was first obtained using a gear-driven calculator in 1948, by
John Wrench and Levi Smith. This was the last, best estimate before electronic computers took over.[FN] FN: Wrench, John. "The evolution of extended decimal approximations to π", The Mathematics Teacher, volume 53, pages 644–650 (1960). |
---|
As far as the recent restorations, I have no problem with them. I had removed the Euler's identity box because the exact same equation is already to the left. I had removed the last term of a series just in case it might collide (in some browsers) with the box containing the 1120 digits. And, I had removed the Archimedes pic because it seemed to be causing some clutter in my browser. Anyway, re-including those three things is fine with me. Thanks for letting me be bold and mess with the article. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Under one of the pictures in the main article we read: 'Squaring the circle was not possible for ancient geometers, because π is a transcendental number.' The text is formally correct, but this is not a correct presentation. It implies that squaring was not possible for the ancient geometers, but probably it is possible for present day geometers(which is wrong). Sqaring IS NOT POSSIBLE, this is a fact, and we should not use Past Tense to denote this fact. Correct presentation would be: Squaring the circle is not possible, because π is a transcendental number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.15.225 ( talk) 22:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It's funny, all of this talk and yet no one answers the most common question: why are there infinite digits? It is because a "segment of a curve" is not 'a line curved'. A segment of the circumference of a circle is a series of infinitely-redirected, infinitely small lines. That's why the digits of 'pi' never stop... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.16.22 ( talk) 20:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It's actually a lot more complicated than that, and your argument can be easily proven fallacious: there are many curves that have a rational arc length between two rational points. The simplest, easiest-to-understand proof is probably the one given by Ivan Niven in 1945; take a look at http://www.mathlesstraveled.com/?p=548 for a good explanation of this proof. -- Lucas Brown 15:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Someone ought to mention in the section on physics that the appearance of pi in equations like Einstein's Field Equations really has no physical significance, because the constants (like "G") can simply be redefined to absorb pi. The appearance of pi in those equations is thus more an artifact of history, or simply for convenience, rather than being of any fundamental importance. 166.137.137.122 ( talk) 16:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I think this article should mention that the odds of two integers being coprime is 6/(Pi^2) Grifguy123 ( talk) 23:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
In this sentence: ..."the decimal representation of π truncated to 11 decimal places is good enough to estimate the circumference of any circle that fits inside the earth with an error of less than one millimetre"... "earth" refers to the planet, so it should start with upper case Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlos Antonio Gil ( talk • contribs) 11:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The history section is missing a very important item: What was this number called before 1710?! (Collin237) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.168.155 ( talk) 14:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
This article states: "the Greek letter is not capitalized (Π) even at the beginning of a sentence, and instead the lower case (π) is used at the beginning of a sentence." Uh, this is basically saying the same this twice - once should be sufficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.141 ( talk) 14:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Gizmodo as well as many other sources are reporting that a new record of 5 trillion digits has been calculated. I'm waiting on a change until I read more about the proof but here's a link to a story on Gizmodo. Other sources are cited at the bottom of the article. OlYeller Talktome 13:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The
"Decimal representation" section lists the first 50 digits of pi using <math>
markups:
Would it not be better to display the digits using regular text (which looks better in some browsers), using the
gaps
template, like this?:
— Loadmaster ( talk) 15:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
There is an incorrect "citation needed" next to text stating Pi to 39 digits being accurate enough to calculate a circle in the observable universe to an error of 1 hydrogen atom. The particular text is in question is already cited further up the page. 62.49.92.201 ( talk) 22:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
It would be nice to see the following body of text elaborated on. Pi being irrational is a huge thing. Proofs demonstrating it would be nice links or journal articles. Meta or elaborative would be great reads. And it would also be nice to give the German credit where credit is due.
"π is an irrational number, which means that its value cannot be expressed exactly as a fraction m/n, where m and n are integers. Consequently, its decimal representation never ends or repeats. It is also a transcendental number, which implies, among other things, that no finite sequence of algebraic operations on integers (powers, roots, sums, etc.) can be equal to its value; proving this was a late achievement in mathematical history and a significant result of 19th century German mathematics. Throughout the history of mathematics, there has been much effort to determine π more accurately and to understand its nature; fascination with the number has even carried over into non-mathematical culture." 70.50.128.228 ( talk) 05:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
It would probably be best to remove this sentence from the lead: "It is approximately equal to 3.14159265 in the usual decimal notation." The reason for removing it is because the template to the right already gives an approximate value, and that' s sufficient. The more precise values can properly be found later in the article.
Per WP:ICONDECORATION, icons such as the one in the template should be informative, and indeed that icon is informative in all the listed articles that do not otherwise give an approximate value. In this article, the icon is only useful if we remove the sentence in the lead. 166.137.138.215 ( talk) 21:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Isaac Asimov wrote an essay in "The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction" titled "Piece of Pi" (December 1960 and then republished in a Book titled "Adding a Dimension" {1964}) where he uses the value of pi to 35 places (as calculated by Ludolf van Ceulen in 1615) to state:
"For example, suppose you drew a circle ten billion miles across, with the sun at the center, for the purpose of enclosing the entire solar system, and suppose you wanted to calculate the length of the circumference of this circle (which would come to over thirty-one billion miles) by using 355/113 as the approximate value of π. You would be off by less than three thousand miles.
But suppose you were so precise an individual that you found an error of three thousand miles in 31,000,000,000 to be insupportable. You might then use Ludolf's value of π to thirty-five places. You would then be off by a distance that would be equivalent to a millionth of the diameter of a proton.
Or let's take a big circle, say the circumference of the known universe. Suppose large radio telescopes under construction can receive signals from a distance as great as 40,000,000,000 light-years. A circle about a universe with such a radius would have a length of, roughly, 150,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (150 sextillion) miles. If the length of this circumference were calculated by Ludolf's value of π to thirty-five places, it would be off by less than a millionth of an inch."
As this was printed in 1960 I would think it would be where the meme started. OakWind ( talk) 08:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
That the universe can be measured with pi to 35 places, and be accurate to a millionth of an inch. OakWind ( talk) 08:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Heh. Very surprised to see this remark about Plouffe's recent (2006) identities:
Bull-hockey. Plouffe asked me to prove this, I did, I thought I'd clean it up, get it ready for publication, and in doing so, found out that the result is "well-known", having been independently rediscovered, and published some 6 or 8 times since the 1920's (including generalizations), and, if you know where to look, even Ramanujan gives the identity in his notebooks. Plouffe is well aware of this, we've corresponded. Here's an online version of the paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0609775 This arxiv paper even reviews some of the times its been re-discovered, and then points at an article that does an in-depth review of these rediscoveries! So there! Hah! Anyway, I'm removing this sentence; I can insert a reference to the above, or any other paper of your choice ... linas ( talk) 05:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
We should mention that the alt-code for π is 227, and (as a bit of trivia) how the code references 22/7. Thoughts? -- Frankjohnson123 ( talk) 22:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Should the suggestion of replacing 2*pi with tau be mentioned? See tauday.com.-- A bit iffy ( talk) 20:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Shoudln't the first image be of the actual symbol, not a mosaic of it? It would be weird in any other article on a mathematical term.
Yaksar (
talk)
01:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion the natural abode of the circle is the plane. Talking about circles in space seems like a superfluous kind of pedantry. Why not talk about a circle in infinite-dimensional Hilbert space for the same price? Tkuvho ( talk) 17:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Recently an octal approximation to π was added to the Number System box that already compares its equivalent in binary, decimal and hex notation. However, 3.111 111 111 111...8 is nothing more than the octal equivalent of 11.001 001 001 001...2 = 3.142 857 142 857...10 = 3.249 249 249 249...16, = 22/7 10. So I have corrected the octal approximation, which is not that difficult once the first sixteen hex digits (3.243 F6A 888 5A3 08D16) are converted to binary (2+60 bits, grouped in fours) and then regrouped in threes (to 1+20 octal digits). — Glenn L ( talk) 18:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
"Reports on the latest, most-precise calculation of π (and related stunts) are common news items"- in whose opinion are these attempts "stunts"? Ninahexan ( talk) 06:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
With some logic? 124.168.166.195 ( talk) 13:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't find any mention of the concept "stunt" in the refs. An analysis of possible patterns on the numbers of pi is a dimension of interest for researchers (enough to warrant a wiki page about the Feynman Point), so I don't think stunt would be the correct term. Perhaps a memorisation and recitation of Pi might qualify, but that is not what is discussed. Ninahexan ( talk) 02:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
This article discusses pi solely in terms of the base-10 numbering system. Can the end of pi finally be solved by rendering it into base-12, base-8, or any of them? A mathematician (which excludes myself) should attempt this and show results. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ ( ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 04:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Limits exist or do not exist but they do not "converge". -- 79.197.111.209 ( talk) 04:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
"The name of the Greek letter π" is not "pi", but πι. "Pi" is its Latin name, used in English, where it is traditionally pronounced as /ˈpaɪ/. Could anyone correct the article? (I'm not a native speaker.) — Mikhail Ryazanov ( talk) 23:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Please see File talk:PiDigits.svg for some objections to the chart of pi memory records being used here and in the Piphilology article. - dcljr ( talk) 23:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that this section should be at the bottom of the article, where already is "in popular culture". That's because right now its before "use in mathematic and science" what makes no sense given that Pi is a mathematical constant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.117.26.41 ( talk) 01:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I've often seen the assertion that "in a different universe, pi would have a different value". It's nonsense, of course, and this fact is briefly alluded to in the article (in the "Physics" section):
It might be helpful to expound on this in further detail in the article, drawing a more blatant distinction between physical and mathematical constants. — Loadmaster ( talk) 01:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Pi with a different value is not so abstract as to need another universe. The value of pi derives only from the metric used to measure distance. The value of pi referred to in this article is using the only metric most people know, the l² norm (also called Euclidean distance). For example, if you used the l^p norm for a different value of p, you would get a different value of pi. Pi in the l¹ norm is 2*sqrt(2), and pi in the l^infinity norm is 4*sqrt(2). ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.118.172 ( talk) 23:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The phrase "ΜΗΚΟΣ ΠΕΡΙΦΕΡΕΙΑΣ ΚΥΚΛΟΥ" means "length of the circle's circuit" has a lexarithm of 2294. The word ΔΙΑΜΕΤΡΟΣ means diameter and has a lexarithm of 730.
For those who do not know what a lexaritm is, it is the pythagorean notion that Greek letters are numbers so that:
Α=1 Β=2 Γ=3 Δ=4 Ε=5 F=6 Ζ=7 Η=8 Θ=9 Ι=10 Κ=20 Λ=30 Μ=40 Ν=50 Ξ=60 Ο=70 Π=80 Q=90 Ρ=100 Σ=200 Τ=300 Υ=400 Φ=500 Χ=600 Ψ=700 Ω=800 S=900
ΜΗΚΟΣ = Μ+Η+Κ+Ο+Σ = 40+8+20+70+200 = 338
ΠΕΡΙΦΕΡΕΙΑΣ = Π+Ε+Ρ+Ι+Φ+Ε+Ρ+Ε+Ι+Α+Σ = 80+5+100+10+500+5+100+5+10+1+200 = 1016
ΚΥΚΛΟΥ = Κ+Υ+Κ+Λ+Ο+Υ = 20+400+20+30+70+400 = 940
ΜΗΚΟΣ+ΠΕΡΙΦΕΡΕΙΑΣ+ΚΥΚΛΟΥ= 338+1016+940 = 2294
ΔΙΑΜΕΤΡΟΣ = Δ+Ι+Α+Μ+Ε+Τ+Ρ+Ο+Σ = 4+10+1+40+5+300+100+70+200 = 730
ΜΗΚΟΣ ΠΕΡΙΦΕΡΕΙΑΣ ΚΥΚΛΟΥ / ΔΙΑΜΕΤΡΟΣ = 2294 / 730 = 3.14... = π
more fun facts:
ΜΟΝΑΣ (one point) has a lexarithm of 361. If you make a sum of the digits sequentially (361 -> 3+6+1=10 -> 1+0 =1) in the same way:
EN (one in greek) E+N = 5+50 = 55 -> 5+5 = 10 -> 1+0 = 1
ΔΥΑΣ(two in greek)Δ+Υ+Α+Σ = 605 -> 6+0+6 = 11 -> 1+1 = 2
ΤΡΕΙΣ(three in greek) Τ+Ρ+Ε+Ι+Σ = 615 -> 6+1+5 = 12 -> 1+2 = 3
And so much more for number enthusiasts...
92.236.81.144 ( talk) 11:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)AΚΕΡΣΕΚΩΜΗΣ
it is the correct way to use in both written and oral Greek (ancient and modern) in other words it sounds natural (instead of artificially designed) 92.236.81.144 ( talk) 19:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)AΚΕΡΣΕΚΩΜΗΣ
In the Physics section of "Use in mathematics and science", could we add the fact that pi is implicated in the calculation of the period of simple harmonic motion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.0.214 ( talk) 13:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Love the animation!! please leave it in! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.65.65 ( talk) 21:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The subject seems to have changed, so I've made a new section. This animation is still used in the Circumference article. Ropata ( talk) 03:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I put it back in at the lead. The image is far more informative and relevant to the subject of this article (which is the mathematical constant) than an image depicting the Greek letter. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 18:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The animation is a little bit distracting, but I agree with Sławomir Biały that it's a much better choice for the lead than the mosaic. Ben ( talk) 01:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC).
In case anyone would want to know, I added information about the new record for computing pi. However, I did not add the formula used, transcribed here, as I am still getting used to Wikitext format. Anyone who has greater experience in Wikitext formatting please consider adding the formula. Thanks, Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs 03:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: insufficient consensus to move. Consistency has never been one of Wikipedia's strong suits. NW ( Talk) 23:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Pi → π — I thought I would open up a discussion about moving this article from Pi to π. At the moment I'm in favour, for the following reasons:
Cheers, Ben ( talk) 00:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC).
WHAT does SC mean?
It says pi may be an SC number ... but what is that there is no link or anything saying what an SC number is please I wondered.
TY
G2thef ( talk) 09:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
See SC (complexity). Kauffner ( talk) 12:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please explain to me why there is this insistence on using π instead of just π? I see that they look (slightly) different; I don't see that either looks particularly better. Putting templates in section headings is an especially bad idea, because section edits then produce broken links in the edit summary. -- Trovatore ( talk) 18:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
It's a pity no one knew about this during the vote, but I have figured how to put a serif π in an article title, as you can see here. Kauffner ( talk) 11:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
{{pi}}
were replaced with <math alt="pi">\pi</math>
... (Not entirely sure it would work. Someone with a screen reader should try that.) ―
A. di M.
plé
dréachtaí
18:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
<math alt="pi">\pi</math>
produces which turns into <span class="texhtml">π</span>
. As you can see, alt is an acceptable attribute for the img tag, but is ignored elsewhere. However <math title="pi">\pi</math>
which produces does insert a title attribute into the span, but sadly screen readers don't substitute the title for the text, so that's no help either. Using the abbr tag (with a title attribute) would work for a screen reader, but folks object to how their browsers display that. We've been round this discussion numerous times when trying to find universally accessible versions of symbols like †, and in the end settled for an image plus alt text every time. --
RexxS (
talk)
18:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)If the article title was π (mathematical constant), it would be consistent with
e (mathematical constant) and the people with screen readers and old browsers would be able to figure out what it meant from context. Math formula won't display in the article title, but if <math alt="pi">\pi</math>
is the first character of the main text, that could be another context clue.
Kauffner (
talk)
01:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I suggest we use "pi" for running text and "π" only for equations and explanations of equations. This is the standard treatment for math symbols in general. Even universally understood symbols like "1" and "2" are spelled out in published text oriented toward the general reader. "π" certainly looks cool, but "pi" remains common usage and by an overwhelming margin. On Google books, pi irrational gets vastly more hits than π irrational. "Pi" is the usage of CNN, BBC, the New York Times, Merriam-Webster, and Oxford. The "pi" entry in Britannica is a good model. They clearly have no policy or technical issue that prevents them from publishing a "π", yet they use it only for equations. Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia does the same (p. 4105 -- sorry no link). If the symbol "π" represented established specialist use, one would certainly expect Van Nostrand's to use it that way. Math journals can go either way. Check here and here for journal articles with "pi" in their titles. One of the few places I found the π symbol used the way it is here, as if it was an established English-language word, is Petr Beckmann's book. Beckmann was a wonderful crank and even set up his own publishing company because no existing publisher would put the π symbol in the title of a book. Kauffner ( talk) 13:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with math symbols in running text, but it's generally frowned upon to use them to start a sentence, which we currently have done several times in the lead. Can we at least rearrange those to start the sentences with regular capitalized words? Dicklyon ( talk) 00:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Just a question, I'm not an experienced mathematician or a specialist, but my calculator claims that 1686629713/536870912 is pie. I used a TI84 Silver Edition calculator and 30 decimals of pie. Is the calculator rounding or will this work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seiji34 ( talk • contribs) 00:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Why do we have a section on "Criticism of pi"? The section seems to criticize the notation, not the constant itself, whose "criticism" I find fairly meaningless. 158.130.13.28 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC).
The lead sentence says: "π (sometimes written pi) is a mathematical constant whose value is the ratio of any Euclidean plane circle's circumference to its diameter...."
This strikes me as wordy and redundant. According to our article for circle, "A circle is a simple shape of Euclidean geometry consisting of the set of points in a plane...." So, it's already inherent in the definition of a circle that it's in a Euclidean plane. Saying a "Euclidean plane circle" in the lead sentence of the present article is redundant, and we should instead just say "circle".
I've also moved the animated gif down a little bit in the article, and put two still pics at the top. The still pics illustrate area, which the animated gif does not (the aesthetics seem better as well). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 09:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I suggest adding formulas from http://iamned.com/math/infiniteseries.pdf to the main article They are interesting
The formula below resembles the Ramanujan pi formulas although its derivation is entirely different:
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
One of the References (#24) is to a scriptpage, not a hardlink. It redirects to the table of contents of the current issue. 24. "Statistical estimation of pi using random vectors". Retrieved 2007-08-12. http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000067000004000298000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
It should be Statistical estimation of π using random vectors S. C. Bloch and R. Dressler American Journal of Physics -- April 1999 -- Volume 67, Issue 4, pp. 298
And it's linked to from here. http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v67/i4
165.215.94.17 ( talk) 18:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Is the value for Pi given in the text box with the caption that follows correct?
"An estimate of π accurate to 1120 decimal digits was obtained using a gear-driven calculator in 1948, by John Wrench and Levi Smith. This was the most accurate estimate of π before electronic computers came into use." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.214.150 ( talk) 19:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Jafeluv ( talk) 11:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Approximations of π → Approximations of pi – Hello everyone, I believe that the following pages should be moved for several reasons. First, there are inconsistencies between this page and some related pages which either use the symbol (π) or its spelled out version (pi). We should go with one of those for consistency. Now we might say, let's use the symbol as it clearly has the majority already, so less moving is required. However, I'm against this, as it makes navigation less user-friendly. The pi symbol isn't on people's keyboard (I wouldn't even know how to type it other than copy-pasting it), making a search for the titles unnecessarily complicated. However, I can also see the point in using the symbol, as it's more correct. And I'm indeed aware how mathematicians love to use that notation instead of its text version. If we decided to use the symbol as article title, we'd have to move this article and Leibniz formula for pi, the other articles appear to be proper names, which wouldn't fall into this category. I'm not sure what to do about 2π theorem (2*pi theorem, 2pi theorem?), as I wouln't know a good title for that one, but I'm sure a solution for this article can be found, too. Looking forward for a good discussion, The Evil IP address ( talk) 13:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
3.
1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679 8214808651 3282306647 0938446095 5058223172 5359408128 4811174502 8410270193 8521105559 6446229489 5493038196 4428810975 6659334461 2847564823 3786783165 2712019091 4564856692 3460348610 4543266482 1339360726 024914127 7245870066 0631558817 4881520920 9628292540 9171536436 7892590360 0113305305 4882046652 1384146951 9415116094
Hope you don't mind, I redid the digits in groups of ten to make the point more clear. -- Glenn L ( talk) 01:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
heres one million decimals: http://robin1232.110mb.com/pi.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.99.248 ( talk) 12:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I've rearranged the images a bit to try and improve the format. Previously, there was a lot of white space in the text, some text was blocked out by images, and the images at the top of the article looked a bit ugly. I also added some info about the Old Testament. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted the bare claim that the Old Testament claims pi equals 3, but I agree that the issue should be dealt with (surprised it isn't already — should look through the history and see if it's been removed at some point). What it actually says is that some king (I think it was) made a "molten sea" ten cubits across, and thirty cubits did compass it round about, something like that. To get from there to "pi equals three" involves several questionable steps of logic. -- Trovatore ( talk) 05:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The usual word for "length" is קו, which has a Gematria number of 106. However, in this passage, the word is קוה, which has a Gematria number of 111. So this suggests a value of 3 × 111 ÷ 106, which gives the value 3.1415 to four decimal places. (Collin237) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.168.155 ( talk) 14:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Let's consider this: "And it was a handbreadth thick; and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, like the flower of a lily: it received and held three thousand baths."(2Ch 4:5) Does it mean that also 2*2 wasn't 4, but something else? Was the volumetric calculation also inprecise or just the vessel wasn't full to the maximum?
Seriously though, if you have a cup of coffe and the distance "from brim to brim" is given, does it mean that the cup cannot be compassed around with shorter string than Pi * brim-to-brim? What if the cup isn't perfectly cylindrical in shape? I mean we don't drink with cups like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measuring_cup, we rather use these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nice_Cup_of_Tea.jpg. I think Pi is more relevant to shapes like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cylinder_%28geometry%29, not like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily.
Please consider thoughtfully the above reasoning and, if you will, edit to the best possible.
I see that there is some disagreement about what image should go at top. I like it this way, with a large Greek letter pi at the top. What do others think? The table looks kind of ugly, and if you go to the link I just gave, you'll see that the table is broken up into two pieces, each located lower down in the article (one is in the section on "Estimating pi" and the other is in the "See also" section). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 10:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
3.
1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679 8214808651 3282306647 0938446095 5058223172 5359408128 4811174502 8410270193 8521105559 6446229489 5493038196 4428810975 6659334461 2847564823 3786783165 2712019091 4564856692 3460348610 4543266482 1339360726 0249141273 7245870066 0631558817 4881520920 9628292540 9171536436 7892590360 0113305305 4882046652 1384146951 9415116094 3305727036 5759591953 0921861173 8193261179 3105118548 0744623799 6274956735 1885752724 8912279381 8301194912 9833673362 4406566430 8602139494 6395224737 1907021798 6094370277 0539217176 2931767523 8467481846 7669405132 0005681271 4526356082 7785771342 7577896091 7363717872 1468440901 2249534301 4654958537 1050792279 6892589235 4201995611 2129021960 8640344181 5981362977 4771309960 5187072113 4 999999837 2978049951 0597317328 1609631859 5024459455 3469083026 4252230825 3344685035 2619311881 7101000313 7838752886 5875332083 8142061717 7669147303 5982534904 2875546873 1159562863 8823537875 9375195778 1857780532 1712268066 1300192787 6611195909 2164201989 3809525720 1065485863 2788659361 5338182796 8230301952 0353018529 6899577362 2599413891 2497217752 8347913151 5574857242 4541506959 Pi to 1120 digits was first obtained using a gear-driven calculator in 1948, by
John Wrench and Levi Smith. This was the last, best estimate before electronic computers took over.[FN] FN: Wrench, John. "The evolution of extended decimal approximations to π", The Mathematics Teacher, volume 53, pages 644–650 (1960). |
---|
Here’s a new template, analogous to
the one for “e”. If there is no objection, what I would like to do is put the image of the mosaic at the top of the article, immediately followed by the new template. The table currently at the top of the article would be put lower in the article as done
here. I also think that the box with pi to a thousand places would be okay in the section on "Estimating π".
{{
Π (mathematical constant)}}
Anythingyouwant (
talk)
20:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The table of pi to 1120 digits looks messed up on my monitor. There's only ten digits in the second row. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
3.
1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679 8214808651 3282306647 0938446095 5058223172 5359408128 4811174502 8410270193 8521105559 6446229489 5493038196 4428810975 6659334461 2847564823 3786783165 2712019091 4564856692 3460348610 4543266482 1339360726 0249141273 7245870066 0631558817 4881520920 9628292540 9171536436 7892590360 0113305305 4882046652 1384146951 9415116094 3305727036 5759591953 0921861173 8193261179 3105118548 0744623799 6274956735 1885752724 8912279381 8301194912 9833673362 4406566430 8602139494 6395224737 1907021798 6094370277 0539217176 2931767523 8467481846 7669405132 0005681271 4526356082 7785771342 7577896091 7363717872 1468440901 2249534301 4654958537 1050792279 6892589235 4201995611 2129021960 8640344181 5981362977 4771309960 5187072113 4 999999837 2978049951 0597317328 1609631859 5024459455 3469083026 4252230825 3344685035 2619311881 7101000313 7838752886 5875332083 8142061717 7669147303 5982534904 2875546873 1159562863 8823537875 9375195778 1857780532 1712268066 1300192787 6611195909 2164201989 3809525720 1065485863 2788659361 5338182796 8230301952 0353018529 6899577362 2599413891 2497217752 8347913151 5574857242 4541506959 Pi to 1120 digits was first obtained using a gear-driven calculator in 1948, by
John Wrench and Levi Smith. This was the last, best estimate before electronic computers took over.[FN] FN: Wrench, John. "The evolution of extended decimal approximations to π", The Mathematics Teacher, volume 53, pages 644–650 (1960). |
---|
As far as the recent restorations, I have no problem with them. I had removed the Euler's identity box because the exact same equation is already to the left. I had removed the last term of a series just in case it might collide (in some browsers) with the box containing the 1120 digits. And, I had removed the Archimedes pic because it seemed to be causing some clutter in my browser. Anyway, re-including those three things is fine with me. Thanks for letting me be bold and mess with the article. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Under one of the pictures in the main article we read: 'Squaring the circle was not possible for ancient geometers, because π is a transcendental number.' The text is formally correct, but this is not a correct presentation. It implies that squaring was not possible for the ancient geometers, but probably it is possible for present day geometers(which is wrong). Sqaring IS NOT POSSIBLE, this is a fact, and we should not use Past Tense to denote this fact. Correct presentation would be: Squaring the circle is not possible, because π is a transcendental number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.15.225 ( talk) 22:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It's funny, all of this talk and yet no one answers the most common question: why are there infinite digits? It is because a "segment of a curve" is not 'a line curved'. A segment of the circumference of a circle is a series of infinitely-redirected, infinitely small lines. That's why the digits of 'pi' never stop... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.16.22 ( talk) 20:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It's actually a lot more complicated than that, and your argument can be easily proven fallacious: there are many curves that have a rational arc length between two rational points. The simplest, easiest-to-understand proof is probably the one given by Ivan Niven in 1945; take a look at http://www.mathlesstraveled.com/?p=548 for a good explanation of this proof. -- Lucas Brown 15:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Someone ought to mention in the section on physics that the appearance of pi in equations like Einstein's Field Equations really has no physical significance, because the constants (like "G") can simply be redefined to absorb pi. The appearance of pi in those equations is thus more an artifact of history, or simply for convenience, rather than being of any fundamental importance. 166.137.137.122 ( talk) 16:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I think this article should mention that the odds of two integers being coprime is 6/(Pi^2) Grifguy123 ( talk) 23:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
In this sentence: ..."the decimal representation of π truncated to 11 decimal places is good enough to estimate the circumference of any circle that fits inside the earth with an error of less than one millimetre"... "earth" refers to the planet, so it should start with upper case Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlos Antonio Gil ( talk • contribs) 11:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The history section is missing a very important item: What was this number called before 1710?! (Collin237) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.168.155 ( talk) 14:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
This article states: "the Greek letter is not capitalized (Π) even at the beginning of a sentence, and instead the lower case (π) is used at the beginning of a sentence." Uh, this is basically saying the same this twice - once should be sufficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.141 ( talk) 14:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Gizmodo as well as many other sources are reporting that a new record of 5 trillion digits has been calculated. I'm waiting on a change until I read more about the proof but here's a link to a story on Gizmodo. Other sources are cited at the bottom of the article. OlYeller Talktome 13:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The
"Decimal representation" section lists the first 50 digits of pi using <math>
markups:
Would it not be better to display the digits using regular text (which looks better in some browsers), using the
gaps
template, like this?:
— Loadmaster ( talk) 15:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
There is an incorrect "citation needed" next to text stating Pi to 39 digits being accurate enough to calculate a circle in the observable universe to an error of 1 hydrogen atom. The particular text is in question is already cited further up the page. 62.49.92.201 ( talk) 22:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
It would be nice to see the following body of text elaborated on. Pi being irrational is a huge thing. Proofs demonstrating it would be nice links or journal articles. Meta or elaborative would be great reads. And it would also be nice to give the German credit where credit is due.
"π is an irrational number, which means that its value cannot be expressed exactly as a fraction m/n, where m and n are integers. Consequently, its decimal representation never ends or repeats. It is also a transcendental number, which implies, among other things, that no finite sequence of algebraic operations on integers (powers, roots, sums, etc.) can be equal to its value; proving this was a late achievement in mathematical history and a significant result of 19th century German mathematics. Throughout the history of mathematics, there has been much effort to determine π more accurately and to understand its nature; fascination with the number has even carried over into non-mathematical culture." 70.50.128.228 ( talk) 05:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
It would probably be best to remove this sentence from the lead: "It is approximately equal to 3.14159265 in the usual decimal notation." The reason for removing it is because the template to the right already gives an approximate value, and that' s sufficient. The more precise values can properly be found later in the article.
Per WP:ICONDECORATION, icons such as the one in the template should be informative, and indeed that icon is informative in all the listed articles that do not otherwise give an approximate value. In this article, the icon is only useful if we remove the sentence in the lead. 166.137.138.215 ( talk) 21:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Isaac Asimov wrote an essay in "The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction" titled "Piece of Pi" (December 1960 and then republished in a Book titled "Adding a Dimension" {1964}) where he uses the value of pi to 35 places (as calculated by Ludolf van Ceulen in 1615) to state:
"For example, suppose you drew a circle ten billion miles across, with the sun at the center, for the purpose of enclosing the entire solar system, and suppose you wanted to calculate the length of the circumference of this circle (which would come to over thirty-one billion miles) by using 355/113 as the approximate value of π. You would be off by less than three thousand miles.
But suppose you were so precise an individual that you found an error of three thousand miles in 31,000,000,000 to be insupportable. You might then use Ludolf's value of π to thirty-five places. You would then be off by a distance that would be equivalent to a millionth of the diameter of a proton.
Or let's take a big circle, say the circumference of the known universe. Suppose large radio telescopes under construction can receive signals from a distance as great as 40,000,000,000 light-years. A circle about a universe with such a radius would have a length of, roughly, 150,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (150 sextillion) miles. If the length of this circumference were calculated by Ludolf's value of π to thirty-five places, it would be off by less than a millionth of an inch."
As this was printed in 1960 I would think it would be where the meme started. OakWind ( talk) 08:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
That the universe can be measured with pi to 35 places, and be accurate to a millionth of an inch. OakWind ( talk) 08:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Heh. Very surprised to see this remark about Plouffe's recent (2006) identities:
Bull-hockey. Plouffe asked me to prove this, I did, I thought I'd clean it up, get it ready for publication, and in doing so, found out that the result is "well-known", having been independently rediscovered, and published some 6 or 8 times since the 1920's (including generalizations), and, if you know where to look, even Ramanujan gives the identity in his notebooks. Plouffe is well aware of this, we've corresponded. Here's an online version of the paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0609775 This arxiv paper even reviews some of the times its been re-discovered, and then points at an article that does an in-depth review of these rediscoveries! So there! Hah! Anyway, I'm removing this sentence; I can insert a reference to the above, or any other paper of your choice ... linas ( talk) 05:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
We should mention that the alt-code for π is 227, and (as a bit of trivia) how the code references 22/7. Thoughts? -- Frankjohnson123 ( talk) 22:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Should the suggestion of replacing 2*pi with tau be mentioned? See tauday.com.-- A bit iffy ( talk) 20:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Shoudln't the first image be of the actual symbol, not a mosaic of it? It would be weird in any other article on a mathematical term.
Yaksar (
talk)
01:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion the natural abode of the circle is the plane. Talking about circles in space seems like a superfluous kind of pedantry. Why not talk about a circle in infinite-dimensional Hilbert space for the same price? Tkuvho ( talk) 17:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Recently an octal approximation to π was added to the Number System box that already compares its equivalent in binary, decimal and hex notation. However, 3.111 111 111 111...8 is nothing more than the octal equivalent of 11.001 001 001 001...2 = 3.142 857 142 857...10 = 3.249 249 249 249...16, = 22/7 10. So I have corrected the octal approximation, which is not that difficult once the first sixteen hex digits (3.243 F6A 888 5A3 08D16) are converted to binary (2+60 bits, grouped in fours) and then regrouped in threes (to 1+20 octal digits). — Glenn L ( talk) 18:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
"Reports on the latest, most-precise calculation of π (and related stunts) are common news items"- in whose opinion are these attempts "stunts"? Ninahexan ( talk) 06:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
With some logic? 124.168.166.195 ( talk) 13:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't find any mention of the concept "stunt" in the refs. An analysis of possible patterns on the numbers of pi is a dimension of interest for researchers (enough to warrant a wiki page about the Feynman Point), so I don't think stunt would be the correct term. Perhaps a memorisation and recitation of Pi might qualify, but that is not what is discussed. Ninahexan ( talk) 02:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
This article discusses pi solely in terms of the base-10 numbering system. Can the end of pi finally be solved by rendering it into base-12, base-8, or any of them? A mathematician (which excludes myself) should attempt this and show results. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ ( ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 04:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Limits exist or do not exist but they do not "converge". -- 79.197.111.209 ( talk) 04:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
"The name of the Greek letter π" is not "pi", but πι. "Pi" is its Latin name, used in English, where it is traditionally pronounced as /ˈpaɪ/. Could anyone correct the article? (I'm not a native speaker.) — Mikhail Ryazanov ( talk) 23:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Please see File talk:PiDigits.svg for some objections to the chart of pi memory records being used here and in the Piphilology article. - dcljr ( talk) 23:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that this section should be at the bottom of the article, where already is "in popular culture". That's because right now its before "use in mathematic and science" what makes no sense given that Pi is a mathematical constant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.117.26.41 ( talk) 01:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I've often seen the assertion that "in a different universe, pi would have a different value". It's nonsense, of course, and this fact is briefly alluded to in the article (in the "Physics" section):
It might be helpful to expound on this in further detail in the article, drawing a more blatant distinction between physical and mathematical constants. — Loadmaster ( talk) 01:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Pi with a different value is not so abstract as to need another universe. The value of pi derives only from the metric used to measure distance. The value of pi referred to in this article is using the only metric most people know, the l² norm (also called Euclidean distance). For example, if you used the l^p norm for a different value of p, you would get a different value of pi. Pi in the l¹ norm is 2*sqrt(2), and pi in the l^infinity norm is 4*sqrt(2). ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.118.172 ( talk) 23:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The phrase "ΜΗΚΟΣ ΠΕΡΙΦΕΡΕΙΑΣ ΚΥΚΛΟΥ" means "length of the circle's circuit" has a lexarithm of 2294. The word ΔΙΑΜΕΤΡΟΣ means diameter and has a lexarithm of 730.
For those who do not know what a lexaritm is, it is the pythagorean notion that Greek letters are numbers so that:
Α=1 Β=2 Γ=3 Δ=4 Ε=5 F=6 Ζ=7 Η=8 Θ=9 Ι=10 Κ=20 Λ=30 Μ=40 Ν=50 Ξ=60 Ο=70 Π=80 Q=90 Ρ=100 Σ=200 Τ=300 Υ=400 Φ=500 Χ=600 Ψ=700 Ω=800 S=900
ΜΗΚΟΣ = Μ+Η+Κ+Ο+Σ = 40+8+20+70+200 = 338
ΠΕΡΙΦΕΡΕΙΑΣ = Π+Ε+Ρ+Ι+Φ+Ε+Ρ+Ε+Ι+Α+Σ = 80+5+100+10+500+5+100+5+10+1+200 = 1016
ΚΥΚΛΟΥ = Κ+Υ+Κ+Λ+Ο+Υ = 20+400+20+30+70+400 = 940
ΜΗΚΟΣ+ΠΕΡΙΦΕΡΕΙΑΣ+ΚΥΚΛΟΥ= 338+1016+940 = 2294
ΔΙΑΜΕΤΡΟΣ = Δ+Ι+Α+Μ+Ε+Τ+Ρ+Ο+Σ = 4+10+1+40+5+300+100+70+200 = 730
ΜΗΚΟΣ ΠΕΡΙΦΕΡΕΙΑΣ ΚΥΚΛΟΥ / ΔΙΑΜΕΤΡΟΣ = 2294 / 730 = 3.14... = π
more fun facts:
ΜΟΝΑΣ (one point) has a lexarithm of 361. If you make a sum of the digits sequentially (361 -> 3+6+1=10 -> 1+0 =1) in the same way:
EN (one in greek) E+N = 5+50 = 55 -> 5+5 = 10 -> 1+0 = 1
ΔΥΑΣ(two in greek)Δ+Υ+Α+Σ = 605 -> 6+0+6 = 11 -> 1+1 = 2
ΤΡΕΙΣ(three in greek) Τ+Ρ+Ε+Ι+Σ = 615 -> 6+1+5 = 12 -> 1+2 = 3
And so much more for number enthusiasts...
92.236.81.144 ( talk) 11:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)AΚΕΡΣΕΚΩΜΗΣ
it is the correct way to use in both written and oral Greek (ancient and modern) in other words it sounds natural (instead of artificially designed) 92.236.81.144 ( talk) 19:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)AΚΕΡΣΕΚΩΜΗΣ
In the Physics section of "Use in mathematics and science", could we add the fact that pi is implicated in the calculation of the period of simple harmonic motion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.0.214 ( talk) 13:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Love the animation!! please leave it in! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.65.65 ( talk) 21:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The subject seems to have changed, so I've made a new section. This animation is still used in the Circumference article. Ropata ( talk) 03:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I put it back in at the lead. The image is far more informative and relevant to the subject of this article (which is the mathematical constant) than an image depicting the Greek letter. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 18:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The animation is a little bit distracting, but I agree with Sławomir Biały that it's a much better choice for the lead than the mosaic. Ben ( talk) 01:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC).
In case anyone would want to know, I added information about the new record for computing pi. However, I did not add the formula used, transcribed here, as I am still getting used to Wikitext format. Anyone who has greater experience in Wikitext formatting please consider adding the formula. Thanks, Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs 03:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: insufficient consensus to move. Consistency has never been one of Wikipedia's strong suits. NW ( Talk) 23:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Pi → π — I thought I would open up a discussion about moving this article from Pi to π. At the moment I'm in favour, for the following reasons:
Cheers, Ben ( talk) 00:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC).
WHAT does SC mean?
It says pi may be an SC number ... but what is that there is no link or anything saying what an SC number is please I wondered.
TY
G2thef ( talk) 09:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
See SC (complexity). Kauffner ( talk) 12:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please explain to me why there is this insistence on using π instead of just π? I see that they look (slightly) different; I don't see that either looks particularly better. Putting templates in section headings is an especially bad idea, because section edits then produce broken links in the edit summary. -- Trovatore ( talk) 18:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
It's a pity no one knew about this during the vote, but I have figured how to put a serif π in an article title, as you can see here. Kauffner ( talk) 11:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
{{pi}}
were replaced with <math alt="pi">\pi</math>
... (Not entirely sure it would work. Someone with a screen reader should try that.) ―
A. di M.
plé
dréachtaí
18:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
<math alt="pi">\pi</math>
produces which turns into <span class="texhtml">π</span>
. As you can see, alt is an acceptable attribute for the img tag, but is ignored elsewhere. However <math title="pi">\pi</math>
which produces does insert a title attribute into the span, but sadly screen readers don't substitute the title for the text, so that's no help either. Using the abbr tag (with a title attribute) would work for a screen reader, but folks object to how their browsers display that. We've been round this discussion numerous times when trying to find universally accessible versions of symbols like †, and in the end settled for an image plus alt text every time. --
RexxS (
talk)
18:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)If the article title was π (mathematical constant), it would be consistent with
e (mathematical constant) and the people with screen readers and old browsers would be able to figure out what it meant from context. Math formula won't display in the article title, but if <math alt="pi">\pi</math>
is the first character of the main text, that could be another context clue.
Kauffner (
talk)
01:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I suggest we use "pi" for running text and "π" only for equations and explanations of equations. This is the standard treatment for math symbols in general. Even universally understood symbols like "1" and "2" are spelled out in published text oriented toward the general reader. "π" certainly looks cool, but "pi" remains common usage and by an overwhelming margin. On Google books, pi irrational gets vastly more hits than π irrational. "Pi" is the usage of CNN, BBC, the New York Times, Merriam-Webster, and Oxford. The "pi" entry in Britannica is a good model. They clearly have no policy or technical issue that prevents them from publishing a "π", yet they use it only for equations. Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia does the same (p. 4105 -- sorry no link). If the symbol "π" represented established specialist use, one would certainly expect Van Nostrand's to use it that way. Math journals can go either way. Check here and here for journal articles with "pi" in their titles. One of the few places I found the π symbol used the way it is here, as if it was an established English-language word, is Petr Beckmann's book. Beckmann was a wonderful crank and even set up his own publishing company because no existing publisher would put the π symbol in the title of a book. Kauffner ( talk) 13:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with math symbols in running text, but it's generally frowned upon to use them to start a sentence, which we currently have done several times in the lead. Can we at least rearrange those to start the sentences with regular capitalized words? Dicklyon ( talk) 00:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Just a question, I'm not an experienced mathematician or a specialist, but my calculator claims that 1686629713/536870912 is pie. I used a TI84 Silver Edition calculator and 30 decimals of pie. Is the calculator rounding or will this work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seiji34 ( talk • contribs) 00:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Why do we have a section on "Criticism of pi"? The section seems to criticize the notation, not the constant itself, whose "criticism" I find fairly meaningless. 158.130.13.28 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC).
The lead sentence says: "π (sometimes written pi) is a mathematical constant whose value is the ratio of any Euclidean plane circle's circumference to its diameter...."
This strikes me as wordy and redundant. According to our article for circle, "A circle is a simple shape of Euclidean geometry consisting of the set of points in a plane...." So, it's already inherent in the definition of a circle that it's in a Euclidean plane. Saying a "Euclidean plane circle" in the lead sentence of the present article is redundant, and we should instead just say "circle".
I've also moved the animated gif down a little bit in the article, and put two still pics at the top. The still pics illustrate area, which the animated gif does not (the aesthetics seem better as well). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 09:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I suggest adding formulas from http://iamned.com/math/infiniteseries.pdf to the main article They are interesting
The formula below resembles the Ramanujan pi formulas although its derivation is entirely different:
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
One of the References (#24) is to a scriptpage, not a hardlink. It redirects to the table of contents of the current issue. 24. "Statistical estimation of pi using random vectors". Retrieved 2007-08-12. http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000067000004000298000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
It should be Statistical estimation of π using random vectors S. C. Bloch and R. Dressler American Journal of Physics -- April 1999 -- Volume 67, Issue 4, pp. 298
And it's linked to from here. http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v67/i4
165.215.94.17 ( talk) 18:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Is the value for Pi given in the text box with the caption that follows correct?
"An estimate of π accurate to 1120 decimal digits was obtained using a gear-driven calculator in 1948, by John Wrench and Levi Smith. This was the most accurate estimate of π before electronic computers came into use." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.214.150 ( talk) 19:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Jafeluv ( talk) 11:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Approximations of π → Approximations of pi – Hello everyone, I believe that the following pages should be moved for several reasons. First, there are inconsistencies between this page and some related pages which either use the symbol (π) or its spelled out version (pi). We should go with one of those for consistency. Now we might say, let's use the symbol as it clearly has the majority already, so less moving is required. However, I'm against this, as it makes navigation less user-friendly. The pi symbol isn't on people's keyboard (I wouldn't even know how to type it other than copy-pasting it), making a search for the titles unnecessarily complicated. However, I can also see the point in using the symbol, as it's more correct. And I'm indeed aware how mathematicians love to use that notation instead of its text version. If we decided to use the symbol as article title, we'd have to move this article and Leibniz formula for pi, the other articles appear to be proper names, which wouldn't fall into this category. I'm not sure what to do about 2π theorem (2*pi theorem, 2pi theorem?), as I wouln't know a good title for that one, but I'm sure a solution for this article can be found, too. Looking forward for a good discussion, The Evil IP address ( talk) 13:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)