Jump to content

The Endless Pi


Dekan

Recommended Posts

When we try to write Pi in decimal notation, we get an endless stream of digits. 3.141592653589723.....and so on forever.

 

This seems counter-intuitive. You'd think that a simple thing, like the ratio between the radius and circumference of a circle, ought to be a simple, precise number. After all, isn't the Universe made almost entirely of circular and round things.

 

Could the seeming lack of precision in Pi, be due to our human custom of using decimal notation. For example, if we divide something into 3 parts, each part is then, in decimal notation, an imprecise 0.333333333.... of the original.

 

But suppose instead, we use Fractional notation. Then we can write each part as a precise 1/3.

 

And applying fractional notation to Pi, we can easily get a very good value. 355/113, gives in decimal 3.141592 - which is accurate to the 6th decimal place.

 

An excellent result, for a fraction which uses only 3 figures in its numerator and denominator! Could fractions with more figures, achieve even more accuracy - and perhaps finally pin Pi down?

Edited by Dekan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No - pi is irrational and cannot be defined as a ratio of two integers. It is also transcendental so cannot be the root of a polynomial with rational coefficients.

 

Irrational Numbers

Proof that pi is irrational

 

Transcendetal Numbers

Proof that pi is transcendental

 

Thanks imatfaal. I've tried to study the links you kindly provided. But they contain mathematics so sophisticated, that to my simple brain, they might as well be written in cuneiform! Hence I can only dumbly accept their conclusion: that Pi is indeed irrational and transcendental.

 

I have some further thoughts about the implications of this. But they would be more suited to "Speculations".

 

Thanks again for your reply!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mathematics - unlike other academic pursuits comes out of the silent planet and commands attention, it would be a personal heresy (and the last battle of science) to deny its force.

 

OK enough - before I try an shoehorn the L the W and the W into a text about maths

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hence I can only dumbly accept their conclusion: that Pi is indeed irrational and transcendental.
Okay really now, if something is transcendental then it has to be irrational. The transcendentals are a subset of the irrationals.

 

Not wanting to scare you too much, but the irrationals are infinitely more numerous than the rationals - numbers don't fit into our systems as neatly as we'd presumed they would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not wanting to scare you too much, but the irrationals are infinitely more numerous than the rationals - numbers don't fit into our systems as neatly as we'd presumed they would.

 

The rationals, and the set of algebraic numbers are both countable, hence of Lebesgue measure 0. The transcendentals, being the complement of the algebraic numbers in are uncountable and of full measure -- you can do this in either the real or complex numbers as you please.

 

Not sure exactly what you mean by "infinitely more numerous", but the above ought to cover it.

Edited by DrRocket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is what I meant, I was sort of deliberately avoiding technical language there.

 

That's what the technical language is for. There is so much BS on the board surrounding the word "infinity" that God only knows how some people might interpret your statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that calculating Pi requires more complex mathematical operations, as we go farther away from the decimal point,

 

I'd ask .. is it true that [math]\pi = \frac{22}{7}[/math]

 

I mean, is it only true for number of digits after the decimal point .. or is it the exact answer ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd ask .. is it true that [math]\pi = \frac{22}{7}[/math]
No. It's about 0.04% off. And for that matter, we've already covered that pi is an irrational number - so the answer there should have more than a little obvious. Edited by the tree
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, no, no - there are proofs and detailed explanations for pi being irrational, you don't just have to accept it.

 

I would recommend reading some of the proofs of irrationality on the wikipedia page to further bolster the tree's post above. whilst they don't go through the proof of pi irrationality (which you can find here but is not for the faint-hearted), the proofs for root 2 and log23 are beautifully followable.

 

One thing occurred to me - and I couldn't fathom an answer nor find one; must there exist a proof of irrationality/rationality for every number. There are numbers for which no proof exists whether they are irrational (2e) - is it possible that there are numbers for which it can never be determined if they are irrational or rational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing occurred to me - and I couldn't fathom an answer nor find one; must there exist a proof of irrationality/rationality for every number. There are numbers for which no proof exists whether they are irrational (2e) - is it possible that there are numbers for which it can never be determined if they are irrational or rational.
If a proof does not exist (in the ethereally mathematical sense of existence), then technically speaking it would be neither rational nor irrational, I suppose some non-computable numbers fall between the gaps in that sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a proof does not exist (in the ethereally mathematical sense of existence), then technically speaking it would be neither rational nor irrational, I suppose some non-computable numbers fall between the gaps in that sense.

 

Absolutely not.

 

Any real number is unequivocally either rational or irrational. It may not be known which is the case, but the answer is never "neither".

 

I seem to recall, not positive though, that it is an open problem whether [math] e + \pi[/math] is rational or irrational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely not.

 

Any real number is unequivocally either rational or irrational. It may not be known which is the case, but the answer is never "neither".

 

I seem to recall, not positive though, that it is an open problem whether [math] e + \pi[/math] is rational or irrational.

 

It is not known whether π + e or π − e is irrational or not. In fact, there is no pair of non-zero integers m and n for which it is known whether mπ + ne is irrational or not. Moreover, it is not known whether the set {π, e} is algebraically independent over Q.

 

I still cannot find mention of whether (ir)rationality must be provable for all numbers - or if some numbers (whilst they must be either irrational or rational) can never be shown to be one or the other

Edited by imatfaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, my point was that a proof must exist, known or otherwise, for every computable number.

 

That was my question - must a proof exist? I cannot find anywhere that says this (or not ) on line. Mathworld gives many forms that will/will not be irrational - but does not mention a theory that states that a proof must exists

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of a statement (such as 'x is(not) rational') being true but unprovable is getting a little Gödelesque for the sake of this thread, I would contend that truth and provability are one and the same though many would disagree and this certainly very far off of topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of a statement (such as 'x is(not) rational') being true but unprovable is getting a little Gödelesque for the sake of this thread, I would contend that truth and provability are one and the same though many would disagree and this certainly very far off of topic.

 

We were not talking about truth vs provability.

 

Your assertion -- that a number for which the rationality or irrationality is unproven is actually then neither rational nor irrational -- is just flat wrong, and therefore extremely misleading to a newbie trying to understand mathematics.

 

Moreover truth and provability ARE NOT the same thing. The people who disagree with you are called mathematicians.

The distinction between "true" and "provable" is critical to understanding the Godel incompleteness theorems, and some of Paul Cohen's work. So, if you contend differently you probably need to do some more study.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your assertion -- that a number for which the rationality or irrationality is unproven is actually then neither rational nor irrational -- is just flat wrong...
I never made such an assertion. The question was about numbers for which a proof exists.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a proof does not exist (in the ethereally mathematical sense of existence), then technically speaking it would be neither rational nor irrational, I suppose some non-computable numbers fall between the gaps in that sense.

 

 

I never made such an assertion. The question was about numbers for which a proof exists.

 

Yes, you did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

What I know about pi ...

 

[math]\pi \approx 3.14[/math]

 

[math]\pi \approx \frac{22}{7}[/math]

 

those are approximations, but what do you think about this one ?

 

[math]\frac{{\pi}^{2}}{6} = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}{\frac{1}{{n}^{2}}}[/math]

Edited by khaled
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.