Hey /sci/ whats so fascinating about Pi exactly?

somewhere within pi it says "you're a faggot"

It's like fractals or some shit

>>7716715
>>7716719
/sci/ your reputation precedes you

>>7716708
Transcendental without limit yet somehow applicable to the real world. It's a number going on forever with an indeteriminable pattern that we still can calculate real world phenomena with.

>>7716742
>we can still calculate real world phenomena with
like what?

>>7716781
um... area of a circle? just one example

File: wild card.png (296KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 500x375px

>>7716757
>>7716781
>>7716786
You can aproximate them, with an approximation of it.

>>7716828
No, you can use it in intermediate steps without having it in the answer to your problem.

>>7716828
Or you can calculate it exactly by expressing your answer in terms of pi. Or sometimes you don't even need to do that, suppose the radius of the circle is [math]\frac{1}{\sqrt(\pi)}[/math] then the area is 1.

File: 444444_article_story_large.jpg (62KB, 381x404px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 381x404px

>>7716786

>>7716708
When you divide the circumference by the diameter you get pi no matter how large said circle is.

>>7716708
Because it's a fundamental feature of Euclidean space, related to both angle and distance, it shows up all over the place - even where you might not expect it. (For instance, because imaginary numbers are essentially right-angle rotations of ordinary numbers, you end up with Euler's identity.) It's also the transcendental number most people are familiar with.

>>7717295
What use are angle and distance, when you can have quadrance and spread?

>>7717295
Someone please explain to me how complex numbers are right-angle rotations of ordinary numbers.

Well, superior intellect here:
1. It is ancient evidence that circles are not real.
2. Nobody has ended it.
3. It is taught from a young age yet only few understand the implications of the above.

Rest is popular science sheeple memorizing and applying it festively because it is easy.

Nothing... We Should use Tau instead

>>7717605
>1 It is ancient evidence that circles are not real.
wat? No gemoetric shapes are real, that's obvious.

>>7716757
It's just an exact number. There's nothing odd or transcendental about that honestly. It just means we haven't found out how exact.

>>7717605
>>7717746
Whats real?

>>7717426
You know how you can represent imaginary numbers on a plane right? Now just transform (x,y) into r*e^(hi), where r is the distance from 0 to (x,y) and h is the angle in relation to the x-axis of the line segment ((0,0),(x,y)).

You now have the unique polar coordinates of your imaginary number. As a consequence, if r=1 and h=π, then e^(πi) =-1, we get Euler's Identity, which is nothing more than the point (-1,0), or -1+0*i, represented in polar notation.

>>7718514
It's literally trancendental tho

>>7718514
>or transcendental
This is what they meant by transcendental:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_number

On this note, and I didn't want to make a shitty thread
are all physical constants in the universe irrational numbers? or are there integers

>>7719313
>physical constants

you can't actually know if a physical constant is rational or irrational. if you do know, it's not physical, but mathematical (like pi)