![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
The page does not properly display at page resolutions under about 1000px of width. This is because the image is floating to the right, and the full digits of pi do not wrap next to it. Thus, the image covers up the digits. Anyone who can fix this, please do. -- TechnoGuyRob 22:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The phrase 'consecutive numbers' is used consistently when what is meant is 'repeated numbers' or 'consecutive occurrences of the same number'. Isn't there some better way to put this?
Do you mean randomly chosen natural number? An irrational number isn't guaranteed to have an equal chance of any particular digit sequence to occur -- it merely cannot be stated as the ratio of two whole numbers. While it's not proven or known if pi itself is a natural number, it seems that if you are going to make a probabilistic analysis of it you should just go ahead and assume it is. Otherwise, how will you what the expected values are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.215.26.189 ( talk) 14:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh actually I meant to say normal, not natural. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.215.26.189 ( talk) 20:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The article calls these 9's an "intriguing coincidence" and states its probability of occurring at .08%. This is misleading, since it doesn't consider that Feynman would have noticed six 4's or six 7's, or for that matter seven 2's or five 6's. Once you add up all the probablilities of finding a series of repeated numbers somewhere near the beginning, it's hardly a coincidence at all. 66.183.132.33 ( talk) 06:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I think this is ridiculous, but
User:CBM
insists on this:
WP:CITE says "[...] editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus." Therefore I am asking everyone to signal here, if he/she does not want to see <references />
replaced by {{
reflist}}
. If no one complains until Feb. 28, I'll replace it. --
bender235 (
talk)
23:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Bender235, I think the idea is that style discussions ought to be consolidated at a relevant project page, such as WT:CITE or WT:MOS. If a consensus were to emerge that one particular style was outright superior to another, then editors would be justified in replacing the deprecated style with the superior style in any article, and each article's first significant contributor would have no special power. But Carl has demonstrated that, in the case of <references/> vs {{ reflist}}, no such consensus presently exists. That being the case, there's no point having separate debates about the merits of each style on the talk pages of thousands of individual articles. Instead, we go with the first significant contributor as an arbitrary but simple way of resolving the choice of style, freeing our time to focus on content. Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 04:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand Feynman was joking. However, did he actually follow through and learn the sequence? This could be a fun/interesting addition to the article. -- 62.107.127.132 ( talk) 17:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I did a little bit of digging on Usenet. This reminded me of where I first read about the idea. In Metamagical Themas, Douglas R. Hofstadter claims that he tried to do this as a kid (full text here). I am now willing to believe that there is no connection of the "Feynman point" to Feynman at all, and that it should be called "Hofstadter point". Maybe your further research can clear this up -- or you could ask Hofstadter what he thinks about Feynman's name being associated with this idea. — Kusma ( t· c) 09:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
What Hofstadter wrote for his May 1982 column in Scientific American was:
There is no mention of the six nines. — Rgdboer ( talk) 03:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, so we have Hofstadter (1985) and Ardnt & Haenel (2001) taking note of the six nines. Perhaps a Move to Six nines in pi is in order, then see if it survives a WP:AfD. — Rgdboer ( talk) 23:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
(unindent) Dear fellow editors - thank you for improving my newspaper column this week. [3] - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 13:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Note that tau (also known as 2pi), the real circle constant, has a feynman point of 7 consecutive 9s!
http://tauday.com/tau_digits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.19.220.235 ( talk) 13:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with IP 50.157.226.255 and others that the sequence of seven 9's in tau is noteworthy. Obviously it is strongly related to the sequence of six 9's in pi and nobody here claims that both sequences are independent coincidences. But the extra 9 in tau, which is quite a noteworthy constant in itself despite not being widely accepted, adds to the coincidence in the sequence in pi. In general the sequence in the double number can also be the same length as, or one shorter than, the sequence in an original number. Since the whole article is about the sequence in pi and how unlikely it is, the tau sequence should be (briefly) mentioned too. Gap9551 ( talk) 00:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
without carry | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
y x |
0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
0 | …19980… | …19982… | …19984… | …19986… | …19988… | …19990… | …19992… | …19994… | …19996… |
1 | …39980… | …39982… | …39984… | …39986… | …39988… | …39990… | …39992… | …39994… | …39996… |
2 | …59980… | …59982… | …59984… | …59986… | …59988… | …59990… | …59992… | …59994… | …59996… |
3 | …79980… | …79982… | …79984… | …79986… | …79988… | …79990… | …79992… | …79994… | …79996… |
4 | …99980… | …99982… | …99984… | …99986… | …99988… | …99990… | …99992… | …99994… | …99996… |
5 | …19980… | …19982… | …19984… | …19986… | …19988… | …19990… | …19992… | …19994… | …19996… |
6 | …39980… | …39982… | …39984… | …39986… | …39988… | …39990… | …39992… | …39994… | …39996… |
7 | …59980… | …59982… | …59984… | …59986… | …59988… | …59990… | …59992… | …59994… | …59996… |
8 | …79980… | …79982… | …79984… | …79986… | …79988… | …79990… | …79992… | …79994… | …79996… |
with carry | |||||||||
y x |
0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
0 | …19981… | …19983… | …19985… | …19987… | …19989… | …19991… | …19993… | …19995… | …19997… |
1 | …39981… | …39983… | …39985… | …39987… | …39989… | …39991… | …39993… | …39995… | …39997… |
2 | …59981… | …59983… | …59985… | …59987… | …59989… | …59991… | …59993… | …59995… | …59997… |
3 | …79981… | …79983… | …79985… | …79987… | …79989… | …79991… | …79993… | …79995… | …79997… |
4 | …99981… | …99983… | …99985… | …99987… | …99989… | …99991… | …99993… | …99995… | …99997… |
5 | …19981… | …19983… | …19985… | …19987… | …19989… | …19991… | …19993… | …19995… | …19997… |
6 | …39981… | …39983… | …39985… | …39987… | …39989… | …39991… | …39993… | …39995… | …39997… |
7 | …59981… | …59983… | …59985… | …59987… | …59989… | …59991… | …59993… | …59995… | …59997… |
8 | …79981… | …79983… | …79985… | …79987… | …79989… | …79991… | …79993… | …79995… | …79997… |
89.244.26.202 ( talk) 08:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I readded this after coming across the OEIS entry; it does seem significant enough to mention (but both bits of numerology are equally random and only notable to the extent they are referenced by others). – SJ + 15:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved by Gap9551. — Kusma ( t· c) 11:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC) — Kusma ( t· c) 11:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Feynman point →
Six nines in pi – I believe consensus was reached in
#Did he do it? to have the article renamed. I am filing a move request because the page was returned to
Feynman point and am thus seeking further input on the best location for the page. I have no opinion on the correct location.
@ Timo3, Kusma, DavidWBrooks, Gandalf61, Rgdboer, and Gap9551:. Izno ( talk) 15:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Obviously enough, base ten is no "special snowflake", as the fact we prefer to use it more than likely merely stems from our anatomy. How about represetations of Pi in other bases, can we observe a similar phenomenon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.70.16.131 ( talk) 01:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
A 9x12 table layout seems highly irregular, with the added difficulty to easily find specific digit positions. As a minimum, I'm sure with a slight mod to the text size, a 10x10 grouping would have fit the page. Alternatively, the graphic at the top of the article could have been used, perhaps with modification into groupings of 10 digits rather than 5, with the bonus interactive capability of the mouse tag providing the specific digit position. SquashEngineer ( talk) 13:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the jpeg illustration because (a) the text duplicates it, (b) it was color coded clear down to the two-digit pairs, creating a hard-to-read mess, and (c) it also showed results for "tau", a distraction that can imply to casual readers that there are two six-number strings in pi.
Others, of course, may disagree. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 18:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
In a reversion of a recent edit,
User:DavidWBrooks said that “Sorry, but that's not what it implies at all.” But I think the reason for the reversion is incorrect, because that is exactly what “4999999 and so on” implies: 5 with a bunch of zeros ad infinitum. (In math, the decimal numbers 0.49999999999999 ... and 0.5 are the same.) -- Roger Hui ( talk) 14:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I have added a "definition needed" tag on "a randomly chosen normal number", since it is not clear to me what is the probability distribution the text is talking about. Is there a natural definition for normal numbers? The normal number page does say anything about it. -- Lucha ( talk) 22:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Opened by a user evading a block; see their contributions as well as this rangeblock. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 13:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Six nines in pi → Six nines in π – use the symbol of pi 78.190.25.41 ( talk) 15:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
The article seems to contradict itself: "while strings of nine 9's next occur at position 590,331,982 and 640,787,382" vs "the positions of the first occurrence of a string of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 consecutive 9's in the decimal expansion are 5; 44; 762; 762; 762; 762; 1,722,776; 36,356,642; and 564,665,206, respectively". Does a sequence of 9 digits 9 appear both at the position 564,665,206 and 590,331,982, or did somebody miscount the digits (e.g. count EOL characters as well)? - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 07:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
In MathWorld as of 1999; perhaps the first use of the name online? Someone might ask Weisstein where he got his initial list of terms. The later citation in MathWorld (to the Penguin Dictionary) notes the sequence but doesn't name it. – SJ + 15:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
The page does not properly display at page resolutions under about 1000px of width. This is because the image is floating to the right, and the full digits of pi do not wrap next to it. Thus, the image covers up the digits. Anyone who can fix this, please do. -- TechnoGuyRob 22:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The phrase 'consecutive numbers' is used consistently when what is meant is 'repeated numbers' or 'consecutive occurrences of the same number'. Isn't there some better way to put this?
Do you mean randomly chosen natural number? An irrational number isn't guaranteed to have an equal chance of any particular digit sequence to occur -- it merely cannot be stated as the ratio of two whole numbers. While it's not proven or known if pi itself is a natural number, it seems that if you are going to make a probabilistic analysis of it you should just go ahead and assume it is. Otherwise, how will you what the expected values are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.215.26.189 ( talk) 14:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh actually I meant to say normal, not natural. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.215.26.189 ( talk) 20:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The article calls these 9's an "intriguing coincidence" and states its probability of occurring at .08%. This is misleading, since it doesn't consider that Feynman would have noticed six 4's or six 7's, or for that matter seven 2's or five 6's. Once you add up all the probablilities of finding a series of repeated numbers somewhere near the beginning, it's hardly a coincidence at all. 66.183.132.33 ( talk) 06:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I think this is ridiculous, but
User:CBM
insists on this:
WP:CITE says "[...] editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus." Therefore I am asking everyone to signal here, if he/she does not want to see <references />
replaced by {{
reflist}}
. If no one complains until Feb. 28, I'll replace it. --
bender235 (
talk)
23:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Bender235, I think the idea is that style discussions ought to be consolidated at a relevant project page, such as WT:CITE or WT:MOS. If a consensus were to emerge that one particular style was outright superior to another, then editors would be justified in replacing the deprecated style with the superior style in any article, and each article's first significant contributor would have no special power. But Carl has demonstrated that, in the case of <references/> vs {{ reflist}}, no such consensus presently exists. That being the case, there's no point having separate debates about the merits of each style on the talk pages of thousands of individual articles. Instead, we go with the first significant contributor as an arbitrary but simple way of resolving the choice of style, freeing our time to focus on content. Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 04:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand Feynman was joking. However, did he actually follow through and learn the sequence? This could be a fun/interesting addition to the article. -- 62.107.127.132 ( talk) 17:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I did a little bit of digging on Usenet. This reminded me of where I first read about the idea. In Metamagical Themas, Douglas R. Hofstadter claims that he tried to do this as a kid (full text here). I am now willing to believe that there is no connection of the "Feynman point" to Feynman at all, and that it should be called "Hofstadter point". Maybe your further research can clear this up -- or you could ask Hofstadter what he thinks about Feynman's name being associated with this idea. — Kusma ( t· c) 09:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
What Hofstadter wrote for his May 1982 column in Scientific American was:
There is no mention of the six nines. — Rgdboer ( talk) 03:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, so we have Hofstadter (1985) and Ardnt & Haenel (2001) taking note of the six nines. Perhaps a Move to Six nines in pi is in order, then see if it survives a WP:AfD. — Rgdboer ( talk) 23:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
(unindent) Dear fellow editors - thank you for improving my newspaper column this week. [3] - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 13:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Note that tau (also known as 2pi), the real circle constant, has a feynman point of 7 consecutive 9s!
http://tauday.com/tau_digits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.19.220.235 ( talk) 13:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with IP 50.157.226.255 and others that the sequence of seven 9's in tau is noteworthy. Obviously it is strongly related to the sequence of six 9's in pi and nobody here claims that both sequences are independent coincidences. But the extra 9 in tau, which is quite a noteworthy constant in itself despite not being widely accepted, adds to the coincidence in the sequence in pi. In general the sequence in the double number can also be the same length as, or one shorter than, the sequence in an original number. Since the whole article is about the sequence in pi and how unlikely it is, the tau sequence should be (briefly) mentioned too. Gap9551 ( talk) 00:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
without carry | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
y x |
0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
0 | …19980… | …19982… | …19984… | …19986… | …19988… | …19990… | …19992… | …19994… | …19996… |
1 | …39980… | …39982… | …39984… | …39986… | …39988… | …39990… | …39992… | …39994… | …39996… |
2 | …59980… | …59982… | …59984… | …59986… | …59988… | …59990… | …59992… | …59994… | …59996… |
3 | …79980… | …79982… | …79984… | …79986… | …79988… | …79990… | …79992… | …79994… | …79996… |
4 | …99980… | …99982… | …99984… | …99986… | …99988… | …99990… | …99992… | …99994… | …99996… |
5 | …19980… | …19982… | …19984… | …19986… | …19988… | …19990… | …19992… | …19994… | …19996… |
6 | …39980… | …39982… | …39984… | …39986… | …39988… | …39990… | …39992… | …39994… | …39996… |
7 | …59980… | …59982… | …59984… | …59986… | …59988… | …59990… | …59992… | …59994… | …59996… |
8 | …79980… | …79982… | …79984… | …79986… | …79988… | …79990… | …79992… | …79994… | …79996… |
with carry | |||||||||
y x |
0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
0 | …19981… | …19983… | …19985… | …19987… | …19989… | …19991… | …19993… | …19995… | …19997… |
1 | …39981… | …39983… | …39985… | …39987… | …39989… | …39991… | …39993… | …39995… | …39997… |
2 | …59981… | …59983… | …59985… | …59987… | …59989… | …59991… | …59993… | …59995… | …59997… |
3 | …79981… | …79983… | …79985… | …79987… | …79989… | …79991… | …79993… | …79995… | …79997… |
4 | …99981… | …99983… | …99985… | …99987… | …99989… | …99991… | …99993… | …99995… | …99997… |
5 | …19981… | …19983… | …19985… | …19987… | …19989… | …19991… | …19993… | …19995… | …19997… |
6 | …39981… | …39983… | …39985… | …39987… | …39989… | …39991… | …39993… | …39995… | …39997… |
7 | …59981… | …59983… | …59985… | …59987… | …59989… | …59991… | …59993… | …59995… | …59997… |
8 | …79981… | …79983… | …79985… | …79987… | …79989… | …79991… | …79993… | …79995… | …79997… |
89.244.26.202 ( talk) 08:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I readded this after coming across the OEIS entry; it does seem significant enough to mention (but both bits of numerology are equally random and only notable to the extent they are referenced by others). – SJ + 15:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved by Gap9551. — Kusma ( t· c) 11:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC) — Kusma ( t· c) 11:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Feynman point →
Six nines in pi – I believe consensus was reached in
#Did he do it? to have the article renamed. I am filing a move request because the page was returned to
Feynman point and am thus seeking further input on the best location for the page. I have no opinion on the correct location.
@ Timo3, Kusma, DavidWBrooks, Gandalf61, Rgdboer, and Gap9551:. Izno ( talk) 15:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Obviously enough, base ten is no "special snowflake", as the fact we prefer to use it more than likely merely stems from our anatomy. How about represetations of Pi in other bases, can we observe a similar phenomenon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.70.16.131 ( talk) 01:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
A 9x12 table layout seems highly irregular, with the added difficulty to easily find specific digit positions. As a minimum, I'm sure with a slight mod to the text size, a 10x10 grouping would have fit the page. Alternatively, the graphic at the top of the article could have been used, perhaps with modification into groupings of 10 digits rather than 5, with the bonus interactive capability of the mouse tag providing the specific digit position. SquashEngineer ( talk) 13:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the jpeg illustration because (a) the text duplicates it, (b) it was color coded clear down to the two-digit pairs, creating a hard-to-read mess, and (c) it also showed results for "tau", a distraction that can imply to casual readers that there are two six-number strings in pi.
Others, of course, may disagree. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 18:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
In a reversion of a recent edit,
User:DavidWBrooks said that “Sorry, but that's not what it implies at all.” But I think the reason for the reversion is incorrect, because that is exactly what “4999999 and so on” implies: 5 with a bunch of zeros ad infinitum. (In math, the decimal numbers 0.49999999999999 ... and 0.5 are the same.) -- Roger Hui ( talk) 14:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I have added a "definition needed" tag on "a randomly chosen normal number", since it is not clear to me what is the probability distribution the text is talking about. Is there a natural definition for normal numbers? The normal number page does say anything about it. -- Lucha ( talk) 22:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Opened by a user evading a block; see their contributions as well as this rangeblock. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 13:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Six nines in pi → Six nines in π – use the symbol of pi 78.190.25.41 ( talk) 15:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
The article seems to contradict itself: "while strings of nine 9's next occur at position 590,331,982 and 640,787,382" vs "the positions of the first occurrence of a string of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 consecutive 9's in the decimal expansion are 5; 44; 762; 762; 762; 762; 1,722,776; 36,356,642; and 564,665,206, respectively". Does a sequence of 9 digits 9 appear both at the position 564,665,206 and 590,331,982, or did somebody miscount the digits (e.g. count EOL characters as well)? - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 07:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
In MathWorld as of 1999; perhaps the first use of the name online? Someone might ask Weisstein where he got his initial list of terms. The later citation in MathWorld (to the Penguin Dictionary) notes the sequence but doesn't name it. – SJ + 15:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)