Daily reminder that the Pi vs Tau debate is for brainlets

File: 1464121770992.jpg (127KB, 800x449px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 800x449px

>>8383438
competent mathematicians just leave pi in the answer, brainlet

>>8383438
Daily reminder that [math]\pi := 3.4[/math]

>>8383438
kek everyone knows that pi=e anyway

>>8383459
pi = -e + 2e actually

>>8383438
I agree with the original assertion. The debate is most certainly for pedantic brainlets.

>>8383459
>>8383469
Brainlets, everyone knows that e+pi=i+1+0

>>8383438
>22/7
Amazing! you only have to remember 3 digits and you get 3.1428.., and since pi is 3.1415... you get an accuracy of 3 digits!

seriously, why don't you just remember 3.14 if you want to use numbers?

>>8383438
I use
3
7
15
and 1

I get 7 digits correct (3,141592)

>>8383859
best answer so far
OP = faggot

WHAT. Are you an idoit.

>competent mathematician
>actually using numbers
Brainlet pretending to not be a brainlet detected

>>8383845
>using decimals instead of rationals
son this isn't an accounting board

>>8384035
I love when I tell people that many mathematicians don't use numbers, and they go, "Ugh, I hate using letters! They're even more confusing." What a time to be alive.

>>8383438
>not just using whatever is appropriate for your circumstances

>>8383859
how do you do that?

>retards everywhere
Pie = delicious and nothing else

>>8384331
Its obviosly the continued fractions of pi

>>8384038
>using rationals instead of decimals

Do you like cutting pies?

>>8384636
thx you seem to be knowledgable
what is the most rapid algorithm/formula, that yields the largest number of correct digits in the less number of steps? (with the smallest information needed of course, dont tell me that 3141592 divided by 1000000 gives 7 digits in 1 step)

>>8384666
>what is the most rapid algorithm/formula
this is not known

>>8384687
it must be known. as of today, among the existing/known material, which one is the fastest? this question definitely has an answer, as a finite set has a lower bound.

>>8384711
I don't know.

The matrix [[0, 4],[1,0]] times the matrix product [[2n-1, n^2],[1, 0]] from n=1 to infinity will give you pi as a limit, in the sense that if you truncate this infinite product at any point, the first column of the resulting matrix will have terms which represent a rational convergent of pi.

Since matrix multiplication is associative, you can fold up this infinite product as many times as you like to obtain a better and better approximation to pi in fewer multiplications, though the terms of the matrix become more complicated as a function of the index.

Since continued fraction convergents represent the best possible rational approximation (in the size of the denominator) you can test the limits of your patience with this quite easily.

>>8384666
well, continued fractions are the most efficient way to write any real number

>>8384038
3.14 is a rational number

>>8384742
>>8384754
you /bros confirm that continued fraction is efficient. thanks.
efficient algorithms that work on the drawing of lines work with continued fraction. christoffel algorithm is one of them.
amazing that continued fractions are not taught in school.

>>8383438
>QM
>I write 7h/44 for reduced planck
>professor doesn't think it's funny
>spanked and sent to bed without dinner

>>8383498
what a beautuful formulae, all five magic numbers in one beautifil equation

> Pi vs Tau debate
there is no "debate" except
in your retarded imagination

>>8385071
Ikr i fking love science :D

>>8383438
Nice b8, m8