What is the exact value of pi?

4*atan(1)

[math]\pi[/math]

the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter

Pi doesn't exist because you can't write it's exact decimal representation, and we all know well number exist iff we can give it's decimal representation

>>8369311
bout tree fiddy

Pi

File: image.png (109KB, 400x270px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 400x270px

>>8369311
22/7

>>8369682
it was that simple, huh

>>8369311
My high school physics teacher told me to just use 3. Same with gravity, he just told me to use 10ms^-2. He was a good teacher.

>>8369510
>decimal
what makes decimal sacred?
why not octal

>>8369704
If it exists in one base it exists in another.d

>>8369709
Can't write the exact decimal representation of 1/3, does that mean we can't write it out in base 9?

>>8369703
>Luke, did I ever tell you that pi isn't equal to 3?

>>8369704
pi is 10 in base pi.

>>8369715
[math] \pi_{10} = 10_{\pi} [/math]
[math] spoopy [/math]

>>8369316
i use acos(-1)

>>8369311
[math]\pi=\int_{-\infty}^\infty\frac{dx}{1+x^2}.[/math], [math]\pi =3+\textstyle {\frac {1}{7+\textstyle {\frac {1}{15+\textstyle {\frac {1}{1+\textstyle {\frac {1}{292+\textstyle {\frac {1}{1+\textstyle {\frac {1}{1+\textstyle {\frac {1}{1+\ddots }}}}}}}}}}}}}}[/math], etc

pi is exactly 3

*room gasps*

>>8369311
pee pee
poo poo

>>8369710
I'd say if it has a repeating expansion then it "exists", but that's the problem with being vague.

>>8369311
its the circumference of a circle with diameter 1.

>>8369880

Area of the unit circle.

>>8369311

log (-1) / sqrt (-1)

>>8369311
The exact value of pi is pi. Pi is also just a number and in the same way the exact value of 2 is 2, the value of pi is pi.

If you want to get more insight on how pi looks like then check cauchy sequences or dedekind cuts and see how equality is defined when numbers are defined this way.

It is quite a good exercise.

>>8369311
Define value
Define exact
Define is
Define what
Define of
Define ?
Then I will answer your question.

>>8369955
Define 'Define value Define exact Define is Define what Define of Define ? Then I will answer your question.' please.

>>8369959
there exists A : c € A, |A| = 36
let a € A: |a| >= 1
B = {f1(a1), f2(a2), ... fn(an)} : a0->an € A, for all k |fk(ak)| = |ak|
"Define" => {{a4, a5, a6, a9, a12, a5}, f"define"}
there exists exactly one t: f"define"(t) = f"Term"("Term")
Therefore, "Term" = {t, f"Term"}
Therefore, f"Define"(t) = f"Term"
"Define value, Define exact, define is, define what, define of define ?" => f"Define"({t"value", t"exact", t"is", t"what", t"of", t"?"}) = f"value exact is what of ?" = f"what is exact value of"
QED.

>>8369982
Autism

>>8369724
>>8369715
>using irrational bases

>>8370282
dont disrespect my phinary

3.141592654 is all the accuracy you'll need boyo

3.2

22/7 gib or take

>>8369703
Using 10 is undestandable,but why the fuck would you use 3 for pi,why not calculate in its native form

>>8369311
ask wild burger

>>8369715
Time to switch everything to base pi then

>>8369876
Can't write it down though

>>8369311
10 in base pi.

All this fail.
There are series that converge to exactly pi.

>>8369311
Is there a sequence of digits in pi that is equivalent to the sequence created by looking at every other digit of pi?

>>8369311
Ask the Daniel Tammet

>>8369682
>3.1428571428571428571428571428571 = 3.1415926535897932384626433832795

>>8369311
whatever the fuck I want it to be nigger

>>8371397
>There are series that converge to exactly pi.
and?

>>8369311
3.1415......1

>>8369311
No finite value as the length of a circle is theoretically infinite

>>8369915
>log (-1) / sqrt (-1)
nah
https://encrypted.google.com/#q=log+(-1)+%2F+sqrt+(-1)

If the largest object that could possibly exist were a sphere how many decimals of pi would be needed to calculate it down to the exact planck length

>>8370548
What is the accuracy you need so that the error in calculating the circumference of the observable universe is less than the Planck length?

>>8369724
>π10=10π
>spoopy

1+2+3 = 1*2*3

>>8371549
>What is the accuracy you need so that...
>I've never heard of Google (or calculators)

>>8371549
The circumference of the observable universe is 27.6e+26 meters or 1.7e+62 Planck lengths.
So about 62-ish decimal places.
3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445

File: 985.jpg (77KB, 803x688px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 803x688px

>>8369855

>>8371552
as you can see from >>8371566
no calculator has that accuracy

>>8371549
>>8371566
Reminder that there is literally no reason to believe that the Planck length is the minimum distance you can consider

3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286 208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844609550582231725359408128481 117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381964428810975665933446128475648233 786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273724587006 606315588174881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146 951941511609433057270365759591953092186117381932611793105118548074462379962749 567351885752724891227938183011949129833673362440656643086021394946395224737190 702179860943702770539217176293176752384674818467669405132000568127145263560827 785771342757789609173637178721468440901224953430146549585371050792279689258923 542019956112129021960864034418159813629774771309960518707211349999998372978049 951059731732816096318595024459455346908302642522308253344685035261931188171010 003137838752886587533208381420617177669147303598253490428755468731159562863882 353787593751957781857780532171226806613001927876611195909216420198938095257201 065485863278865936153381827968230301952035301852968995773622599413891249721775 283479131515574857242454150695950829533116861727855889075098381754637464939319 255060400927701671139009848824012858361603563707660104710181942955596198946767 837449448255379774726847104047534646208046684259069491293313677028989152104752 162056966024058038150193511253382430035587640247496473263914199272604269922796 782354781636009341721641219924586315030286182974555706749838505494588586926995 690927210797509302955321165344987202755960236480665499119881834797753566369807 426542527862551818417574672890977772793800081647060016145249192173217214772350 141441973568548161361157352552133475741849468438523323907394143334547762416862 518983569485562099219222184272550254256887671790494601653466804988627232791786 085784383827967976681454100953883786360950680064225125205117392984896084128488 626945604241965285022210661186306744278622039194945047123713786960956364371917

File: maxresdefault.jpg (130KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1920x1080px

>>8371575
>no calculator has that accuracy
I used Google, Yahoo Answers. Wikipedia and calc.exe to come up with the answer.

>>8371591
I used 4chan. Easier.

>>8371551
-1 + 0 + 1 = -1*0*1

>>8369311
It's 1 in base-pi.

>>8371601
think again

>>8371601
How do you write an integer in base pi

>>8371604
1 = 10/10 for example

>>8371605
That's easy, how do you write 2?

>>8371606
10/10 + 10/10 = 20/10

File: 9-26-2016 9-45 AM Office Lens (2).jpg (395KB, 1627x1274px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 1627x1274px

>>8369311
4

>>8369845
>using ellipses when there is no known pattern

File: 1474306495592.jpg (56KB, 342x342px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 342x342px

>>8370093
fucking kek

>>8371604
The integers in base pi are pi, 2pi, 3pi in base 10.

>>8369932
This guy gets it.

>>8369311
Pi = the first non trivial zero of the serie defined by sin x = x - x^3/6 +x^5/120...

>>8369311
just change topology till pi=1

>>8371849

>The integers in base 10 are 10, 2*10, 3*10, 4*10,...

are you retarded?

>>8369512
K.e.k

>>8371588
Pi is so big...

>>8371588
Where's the rest?

File: 1467994604065.png (84KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 500x500px

>>8371475

>>8371539

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=log+%28-1%29+%2F+sqrt+%28-1%29

>>8371663
0.5 * 0.5 does not equal 1

>>8372349
I don't think that's implied anywhere

>>8372340
ok
https://encrypted.google.com/#q=ln+(-1)+%2F+sqrt+(-1)

>>8369704
> integer base system
> not pi base

The exact value of pi is 1

>>8369311
About three and one tenth

>>8372182
Pig is so bi...

>>8372423
>>8372340
fucking retards relying on web-based calculation
go to hell shitty minds
(or to your garbage collecting company)

>>8372349
0.5 radius you dingus
1 diameter

>>8369316
What is a?

File: piequals4[1].png (48KB, 350x494px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 350x494px

>>8372349
literally I just hand drawed pic related

>>8372742
this picture is actually a really good example of the difference between progressing toward infinity and actual infinity, no matter how many squares you subtract from it the perimeter is still 4, it can't make the jump to 3.14 until you change the axioms

>>8372784
There is no "actual infinity". Infinity is not a number.

>>8369703
Engineer detected

>>8372788
then how many numbers are there?

>>8372799
Your question is invalid.

It's the same as walking along a circle and asking "how long till the end?".

>>8372812
you're an idiot

>>8372830
Sure, as long as you agree that infinity is not a number and that the question "then how many numbers are there?" is invalid.

>>8372838
The question is not invalid. The answer is infinity. Who said the answer had to be a number?

>>8372784
It has nothing to do with infinity. Basically, the more "remove squares" the more you approach a situation where you get a bunch of tiny spikes whose perimeter will approach 2pi-4

>>8372846
"how many" implies a finite number as an answer.
If anything, a better answer would be "infinite amount".

>>8372846
how do you define "invalid"? the fact that you can't fathom infinity doesn't mean it can't exist, the question is not unanswerable but rather you choose not to answer it

>>8372860
That's probably a better wording of the answer.

However my point still stands.

>>8372857
no, the perimeter is still 4, do the math

>>8372862
Did you reply to the right person? I did answer it.

>>8372869
My bad, you're right.

>>8372870
yes sorry, I was replying to the post that said "the question is invalid" and I accidentally clicked the one that said "the question is not invalid"

>>8369311

The circumference of the unit circle divided by its diameter.

about 3

Let [math]p[/math] be the probability that two positive integers are coprime.

[math] \displaystyle \pi = \sqrt{\frac{6}{p}} [/math].

>>8370282
>not wanting to explore the properties of different mathematical structures

It's like you have no fucking idea what math is. Please leave this board

>>8373045
>different bases are different structures
>the structure is equivalent to the choice of representation
>writing the elements of a structure in an alternate format makes it a '''different''' structure
No anon, I think you are the one who needs to leave.

>>8373099
The association of representation to structure is itself structure, but it's a pretty stupid category of representations to study.

>>8373021
>not specifying a probability distribution
Wew

>>8373114
The natural density function is the default one.

>>8373139
Which is what?

>>8371546
>Let's go to the largest size there is: the visible universe. The radius of the universe is about 46 billion light years. Now let me ask a different question: How many digits of pi would we need to calculate the circumference of a circle with a radius of 46 billion light years to an accuracy equal to the diameter of a hydrogen atom (the simplest atom)? The answer is that you would need 39 or 40 decimal places. If you think about how fantastically vast the universe is — truly far beyond what we can conceive, and certainly far, far, far beyond what you can see with your eyes even on the darkest, most beautiful, star-filled night — and think about how incredibly tiny a single atom is, you can see that we would not need to use many digits of pi to cover the entire range.

>>8371117
10 is .2 away from 9.8
3 is only .14 away from pi
Why not just use g in it's native form?
Physics fags btfo

i can tell you that 6 is the 32nd millionth digit

>>8373426
>the largest size there is: the visible universe
Physicists please go. Pi is for pure math, not your disgusting real-world applications.

>>8373587
Native form=the actual symbol,no numeric value

>>8374458
g is a symbol but it has a numeric value.
Pi is a symbol but it has a numeric value. Or are you saying pi doesn't represent a numeric value?

>>8369311

3.14159265389

That's all the decimal places I know from memory

>>8374705

Oh shit it's 59 at the end. Welp.

>>8369704
Cuz wildberger said so

>>8369311
$3.14
A little more for pecan or key lime.

>>8374714
no you're right. off the top of my head it's 3.1415926535897932

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 4999999 and so on ;)

>>8375302
>making shit up

I FUCKING HATE MATH

π/4 = 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + ...

>>8369311
In case you are serious:
Pi is a trascendental number. That means it has an infinite amount of decimals and cannot be represented as a fraction, a power, or a combination of both.
P.S. e is also a trascendental number.

>>8375978
What is e and where it came from?

>>8375810

That's a shame, it speaks very highly of you.

>>8372725
arctan

>>8375988
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant)
That should answer your question anon.

>>8369311
a curve

>>8369311
[math] \frac{3.1415... * n}{n} [/math]

>>8369311
180 degrees, duh

>>8369311
[eqn]\pi=\frac{\ln(-1)}{i}[/eqn]

>>8374491
In physics you need a numeric value for optimal performace,in maths you dont need to,you can use the symbol and still get the result you need

>>8372182
for you
HHUUUGGGHHGHGG

File: 11992266.jpg (2KB, 96x96px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 96x96px

>>8371397
>adding infinitely many things

File: cancer.jpg (45KB, 600x598px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x598px

>>8376137
Ok, I got it guys, it's "arctantan".

>>8372191
>"UNTIL NEXT TIME ON 1948 DIGITS OF PI COMMING NEXT SATURDAY"