Pi=3.14~

Every wonder exactly how far they have gone with pi ?

ever wonder how long that # can really be..

From what ive heard they have gone pretty far with it but i stumbled across a URL my friend sent me that has shown a big part of how far they have gone without finding 1 bit of a repeat

i belive this goes over 2 million digits but im not 100 % sure and that is just a educated guess..

I have a text version of the # in the biggest form i have found but it was near 5.5 megs in text version so i will not be uploading it obviously ;)

but if u are interested in seeing the # of all #'s heres a interesting link

http://3.141592653589793238462643383...20974944592.jp

im guessing people found this by typeing in the first few #'s in the string and found the URL, it is on google from what ive seen

if anyone is able 2 load the full page and let us know exactly how big that page is please let me know becuase i am curious, but not curious enough to let it load on my 56k :)


--NetSyN

i recently just came across this link also

it takes the square root of 2 to 5 million digits ;)

http://gutenberg.unipmn.it/mirror/etext94/2sqrt10a.txt

now you see why they stop at .14~ ;)

5.5 megs for a text file? that's one big #.........

i was flipping around planet source code a while ago and i saw a couple VB programs that could be used to caculate pi to as many decimal places if anyone wants to check it out the links are:

http://planet-source-code.com/vb/scr...26645&lngWId=1
http://planet-source-code.com/vb/scr...33125&lngWId=1
http://planet-source-code.com/vb/scr...21998&lngWId=1

I wrote a program in C++ with a modified version of the BigInt class (I coded a new one called BigFloat, based upon some of the info from BigInt). I calculated it to something like 50,000 digits for my professor to prove that it worked properly (he randomly checked digits with a list he found at some university's web site). It was actually pretty interesting to watch it go...

AJ

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by avdven
I wrote a program in C++ with a modified version of the BigInt class (I coded a new one called BigFloat, based upon some of the info from BigInt). I calculated it to something like 50,000 digits for my professor to prove that it worked properly (he randomly checked digits with a list he found at some university's web site). It was actually pretty interesting to watch it go...

AJ

---

Could you please post the source code?) I would like to take a look at it. Thanx

There are more than a few sites who exist only to calulate PI, do a search on google, but I am not sure you would want to, they are pretty boring. :)

have u read that book Contact by Carl Sagan? ( The movie is awesome too but the book rocks!)

The end of the book has a cool explanation about pi...

And also: Fermat's Enigma: The Epic Quest to Solve the World's Greatest Mathematical Problem by Simon Singh has some nice math explanation about pi and other quizzes...

________
mOTA

I agree with RA why do you want to keep the number going when youcan just write 3.14~

As for the square root of two, ever tried using taylor polynomials? I get an odd sense of satisfaction from taking the value of e, paper, pencil, and finding the result of a number raised to a fractional power and getting a result that agrees with my TI-83 to about four decimal places :) It takes a while if you do it by hand, though.

MsMittens already recommended Singh's books before; haven't had a chance to read them yet though :(

Anyways, here's what Fermat's Enigma was all about:

We all know Pythagoras' theorem. There are lots of trios of integers that qualify for Pythagoras' equasion (a² + b² = c², eg. 3,4 and 5). There are even more non-integers that qualify for the equasion (1, 2 and SRQ{5},...). Let's focus on the integers though...

You also could try this with a³ + b³ = c³: search for integers a, b and c that qualify for a³ + b³ = c³.
Pierre Fermat stated in the 1730's that you can't find integers a, b and c so that a³ + b³ = c³, or more generally for every n-th power bigger than 2.

He claimed to have found the ultimate evidence for his theorem, but it was never found.

In 1993, Andrew Wiles finally presented the complete evidence... Most specialists don't believe that Fermat ever found the evidence himself (based on the limited mathematical knowledge in the 1700's).

This is what differentiates computers from human beings and what makes Fermat's theorem particularly interesting: you can run computers to find billions times trillions of integers that do not qualify for a³ + b³ = c³; that still wouldn't proove the theorem (sure, the chance it IS true will grow, but the computer can never be sure about it - it's enough to find three integers that DO qualify for the equasion, and your 'computer-proof' is worthless...). It took a human being to proove that searching for those true integers is a waste of time...

blow: For precision.

Weirdos... :D

I thought pi was just 22/7... :(

no pi isnt quite 22/7...... what IS the real formulia for pi? 22/7 is what they tell you when your 10 to plug into your calculator incase you forget 3.14, it agrees closly but veers off after the first few digits. what is the actual formulia? any one know?

The circumference of a circle divided by its diameter = pi

SunDots - I'll post the source code in this thread as soon as I can find it. It was a few years ago, and I have to check my backups for the file itself. As soon as I do, it'll be up. :-)

AJ

22/7 is just like "3.1416", they are approximate values that people use because they are too lazy to use a closer approximation such as 3.141592 :D

As for ye olde 'proof by computer', the essential problem is that you can't program a computer to think 'outside the box' or to derive 'obvious' things. That, and mathematics is still an uncertain science (albeit greatly more rule-based than some less cut-and-dried sciences.)

For instance, take a circle. Programming a computer to find the points on a circle would cause it to never find the number of points, but the limit would be at infinity. Yet if you ask a person, they might say that it either has no points or infinite points. And in a way, both answers are correct. On one hand, an infinite number of points would cause a 'smooth' circle/polygon.

Othe other hand, if a straight line is drawn between points, a circle has no straight lines, only a continuous curve, therefore it has no points...

Bleh. Have I sidetracked things? :)