New value of pi?

For the discussion of math. Duh.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

Hydralisk
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:25 pm UTC

New value of pi?

Postby Hydralisk » Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:56 am UTC

Somehow I very much doubt it.

What do you guys think? Elaborate hoax or deluded moron?

User avatar
joshz
Posts: 1466
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:51 am UTC
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: New value of pi?

Postby joshz » Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:28 am UTC

Deluded moron. No doubt. I don't feel like reading through his argument and discrediting atm, but I might later after I get home if no one has already and I'm not too tired.

EDIT: well, I suppose it could just be to sell his book, but he's clearly not right.
You, sir, name? wrote:If you have over 26 levels of nesting, you've got bigger problems ... than variable naming.
suffer-cait wrote:it might also be interesting to note here that i don't like 5 fingers. they feel too bulky.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: New value of pi?

Postby Tirian » Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:21 pm UTC

I'm not sure if it's important whether he's wrong for the lulz or because he honestly believes that Archimedes was wrong.

I can't get past page 20, where he seems to define a circle of a certain diameter as being the unique circle inscribed within a square with the same edge-length and then proceeds to casually assert that this is only the case for the square whose "area is the same as its perimeter". I don't know what his fixation is with conflating a geometric figure's area and perimeter, but it seems to lead him nowhere worth following.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11078
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: New value of pi?

Postby Yakk » Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:15 pm UTC

Pattern recognition without education or the ability to actually explain what is being recognized?

The fact that a 4 unit length square has the same number for the circumference as area is a pattern he spotted. Lacking education, he latched onto it as being extremely significant (and missed the fact that the two numbers are of different dimension, hence dependent on the scale of the unit in question).

He also lacks the ability to clearly explain what he is doing. The start of his work is ridiculously written.

Once latched onto that pattern (at side length 4, circumference is area), the author then says that the same pattern must hold for things "related" to the square of side length 4. Meanwhile, the author uses lots of nearly random sentences -- I suspect that English is not the author's first language.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
majikthise
Posts: 155
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 2:28 am UTC
Location: Bristol, UK

Re: New value of pi?

Postby majikthise » Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:22 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:...Meanwhile, the author uses lots of nearly random sentences -- I suspect that English is not the author's first language.

Did the "The book is now published in English" not give that away?
I still find these things incredibly interesting to read, in a warped kind of way (possibly partly due to the procrastination effect, scary nasty exam on Galois theory tomorrow EEK).
Is this a wok that you've shoved down my throat, or are you just pleased to see me?

User avatar
xkcdfan
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:10 am UTC

Re: New value of pi?

Postby xkcdfan » Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:52 pm UTC

But what if he's right? I mean, what actual proof is there that the things he says in his book are false?

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: New value of pi?

Postby mike-l » Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:00 pm UTC

xkcdfan wrote:But what if he's right? I mean, what actual proof is there that the things he says in his book are false?


Well, we can calculate pi to an arbitrary number of digits, and this has been done by a large number of people past the points that his values of pi differ.
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

User avatar
majikthise
Posts: 155
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 2:28 am UTC
Location: Bristol, UK

Re: New value of pi?

Postby majikthise » Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:06 pm UTC

xkcdfan wrote:But what if he's right? I mean, what actual proof is there that the things he says in his book are false?

Well then we've found a contradiction in ZFC (avoiding for the moment the fact that nothing he says is specific enough to be formalised), and the demand for set theorists/logicians goes through the roof! Yippee!
(Or they all get shot)

Seriously though, I wonder what would happen if an inconsistency was found? *shiver*
Is this a wok that you've shoved down my throat, or are you just pleased to see me?

User avatar
TaintedDeity
Posts: 4002
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:22 pm UTC
Location: England;

Re: New value of pi?

Postby TaintedDeity » Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:11 pm UTC

I... surely he could just draw a circle, measure it accurately and realise he's wrong?
Ⓞⓞ◯

User avatar
NathanielJ
Posts: 882
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 9:04 pm UTC

Re: New value of pi?

Postby NathanielJ » Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:13 pm UTC

I always wonder why so many cranks out there claim to have found the "true value" of pi, yet no one does the same thing for e, the Euler-Mascheroni constant, phi, or any of the other hundreds of named irrational mathematical constants.

But yeah, this won't probably legit.
Homepage: http://www.njohnston.ca
Conway's Game of Life: http://www.conwaylife.com

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: New value of pi?

Postby BlackSails » Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:28 pm UTC

majikthise wrote:Seriously though, I wonder what would happen if an inconsistency was found? *shiver*


There are other set theories, arent there?

User avatar
majikthise
Posts: 155
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 2:28 am UTC
Location: Bristol, UK

Re: New value of pi?

Postby majikthise » Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:46 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:
majikthise wrote:Seriously though, I wonder what would happen if an inconsistency was found? *shiver*


There are other set theories, arent there?

Yes, but there would still be a hell of shitstorm- first you'd have to attempt to work out what exactly caused the inconsistency, curse Godel, then rule out any other similar theories, then have a big debate over which one to adopt, then make sure the rest of mathematics can be conducted inside it, then curse Godel again, then have lots of philosophical discussions about the futility of reasoning and the cruelty of the universe before finally turning into a blathering mess and topping yourself.

(Or just never leave the confines of nice, tame decidable theories like RCF)

edit: I've just realised the harmony between my username and talking about Godel- "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Is this a wok that you've shoved down my throat, or are you just pleased to see me?

achan1058
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:50 pm UTC

Re: New value of pi?

Postby achan1058 » Thu Apr 08, 2010 10:05 pm UTC

(Looking at his country)
You sure it isn't just some propaganda about the evils of the West?

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: New value of pi?

Postby Cleverbeans » Thu Apr 08, 2010 10:26 pm UTC

xkcdfan wrote:But what if he's right? I mean, what actual proof is there that the things he says in his book are false?


Well, firstly note that he defines [imath]\pi[/imath] in the usual way, as the ratio of the circumference of the circle to the diameter, so he's talking about the same quantity that's commonly understood today. We also know that [imath]\pi[/imath] can take on different values depending on the metric space under consideration, and it's well understood problem.

So, under the assumption that he's actually found something true, this is probably what's happened and it's just not interesting at all since it's trivial. From the tone of his gibberish, I think he may have discovered that a weighted inner product changes the associated metric, and summarily lost his mind.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

Ended
Posts: 1459
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:27 pm UTC
Location: The Tower of Flints. (Also known as: England.)

Re: New value of pi?

Postby Ended » Thu Apr 08, 2010 10:37 pm UTC

majikthise wrote:Seriously though, I wonder what would happen if an inconsistency was found? *shiver*

An excellent piece of short fiction on this topic is Division by Zero by Ted Chiang. (Deals with suicide, btw)
Generally I try to make myself do things I instinctively avoid, in case they are awesome.
-dubsola

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 788
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: New value of pi?

Postby MartianInvader » Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:00 am UTC

If an inconsistency were found in ZFC, the logicians and set theorists would have a huge field day, debating and fixing and eventually coming to a consensus to replace it with something else. Other mathematicians would be amused, fascinated even, but it wouldn't really affect most areas of mathematics.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

User avatar
Kurushimi
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:06 am UTC

Re: New value of pi?

Postby Kurushimi » Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:41 am UTC

So, I just for kicks, I googled "True Value of Pi", just to see what I'd find.

I have lost all faith in humanity.

User avatar
CodeLabMaster
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 5:20 am UTC
Location: Just sum the possible locations times thier probabilities to find where you should expect me...

Re: New value of pi?

Postby CodeLabMaster » Fri Apr 09, 2010 7:53 am UTC

Because I'm a masochist, I read through it until I found an error, and that'd be page 29, where he tries to find the ratio between the area of a circle with a diameter of 4 and a square with a side of 4. It has logarithms and makes baby jesus cry.

tesseraktik
Posts: 218
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:14 pm UTC
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: New value of pi?

Postby tesseraktik » Fri Apr 09, 2010 11:57 am UTC

Hope to find the time to check this out more closely. I have no doubt he's wrong, as measurements would have picked up on such a large error long ago, not to mention numerical calculations that simply approximate circles using finer and finer polygons... ...but it could possibly be quite fun to prove it!

achan1058 wrote:(Looking at his country)
You sure it isn't just some propaganda about the evils of the West?
In my experience, Swedes of Iranian descent make good mathematicians. That being said, this guy lives in Skåne, so he's practically Danish.
CodeLabMaster wrote:Because I'm a masochist, I read through it until I found an error, and that'd be page 29, where he tries to find the ratio between the area of a circle with a diameter of 4 and a square with a side of 4. It has logarithms and makes baby jesus cry.
Try sending him an e-mail. I doubt you'll be the first, and I doubt you'll get the 300.000 crowns, but you can report back here and let us all share in the lulz.
ni'o mi nelci le zirpu sovmabrnornitorinku
Spoiler:
++$_ wrote:What's a "degree"?

EDIT: I looked it up on Wikipedia. Apparently it's some ancient Babylonian unit for angles :/

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: New value of pi?

Postby mike-l » Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:29 pm UTC

Kurushimi wrote:So, I just for kicks, I googled "True Value of Pi", just to see what I'd find.

I have lost all faith in humanity.


http://www.jainmathemagics.com/page/10/default.asp is a fun one!
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

User avatar
NathanielJ
Posts: 882
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 9:04 pm UTC

Re: New value of pi?

Postby NathanielJ » Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:09 pm UTC

http://www.jainmathemagics.com/page/10/default.asp wrote:The ancient Mathematics masters have always known that the two most important transcendental numbers Pi and Phi are intimately related.


Quick, how many things wrong with that one sentence can we find?
Homepage: http://www.njohnston.ca
Conway's Game of Life: http://www.conwaylife.com

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: New value of pi?

Postby mike-l » Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:46 pm UTC

NathanielJ wrote:
http://www.jainmathemagics.com/page/10/default.asp wrote:The ancient Mathematics masters have always known that the two most important transcendental numbers Pi and Phi are intimately related.


Quick, how many things wrong with that one sentence can we find?


My favorite bit is
but this does not account for the infinitesmal area under the curve that just does not disappear, forcing us to conclude that the true value of Pi must be a fraction more that what we thought it was. This is why NASA are using a secret value of Pi that is a fraction more than the traditional value of pi.
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: New value of pi?

Postby Tirian » Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:48 pm UTC

NathanielJ wrote:
http://www.jainmathemagics.com/page/10/default.asp wrote:The ancient Mathematics masters have always known that the two most important transcendental numbers Pi and Phi are intimately related.


Quick, how many things wrong with that one sentence can we find?


:!:

Wow, so that's what an overflow error feels like.

User avatar
Talith
Proved the Goldbach Conjecture
Posts: 848
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:28 am UTC
Location: Manchester - UK

Re: New value of pi?

Postby Talith » Fri Apr 09, 2010 3:42 pm UTC

My favourite bit is this (not what's inside the brackets for extra lulz
Sources of information claim that NASA are secretly using another value of Pi which is higher in the range of 3.142 to 3.146 and the story goes that the mooncraft would have missed the moon had they used the false and traditional value of Pi as 3.141592, so to make the correction necessary for the mooncraft to land successfully on the moon (if it ever really happened!) NASA were forced to increase the value of Pi.

User avatar
Dason
Posts: 1309
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:06 am UTC
Location: ~/

Re: New value of pi?

Postby Dason » Sat Apr 10, 2010 4:19 pm UTC

mike-l wrote:My favorite bit is
but this does not account for the infinitesmal area under the curve that just does not disappear, forcing us to conclude that the true value of Pi must be a fraction more that what we thought it was. This is why NASA are using a secret value of Pi that is a fraction more than the traditional value of pi.

That's my favorite bit too! After Kurushimi suggested googling True Value of Pi and did and found that site and immediately SHIT MY PANTS. WHY WOULD NASA KEEP THIS FROM US!?! But now I have to decide which of the 5+ values of pi listed on that site to actually believe!
double epsilon = -.0000001;

DavCrav
Posts: 238
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 3:04 pm UTC
Location: Oxford, UK

Re: New value of pi?

Postby DavCrav » Sat Apr 10, 2010 5:57 pm UTC

mike-l wrote:My favorite bit is
crank wrote:but this does not account for the infinitesmal area under the curve that just does not disappear, forcing us to conclude that the true value of Pi must be a fraction more that what we thought it was. This is why NASA are using a secret value of Pi that is a fraction more than the traditional value of pi.


The thing is, that he is right in some sense. I mean, if you approximate the circle by interior polygons, you get closer and closer to the value of pi, but always miss it by a small amount. This is perfectly true. However, he then makes a 'bit' of a mistake by saying that this is an error that's bounded above.......

User avatar
Talith
Proved the Goldbach Conjecture
Posts: 848
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:28 am UTC
Location: Manchester - UK

Re: New value of pi?

Postby Talith » Sat Apr 10, 2010 7:42 pm UTC

Our definition of a limiting process though means we can get as close to the value that we assign to pi as we like by choosing a different delta. So, saying it is a fraction bigger then begs the question, what is that fraction? because I can always construct an n-gon which gives an error value less than what your 'fraction' is.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11078
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: New value of pi?

Postby Yakk » Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:15 pm UTC

The easy way to bound the delta is to make some arguments about both inner and outer polygons, showing that the outer polygons are longer and the inner are shorter.

But yes, batshit insane.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: New value of pi?

Postby mike-l » Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:39 pm UTC

DavCrav wrote:
The thing is, that he is right in some sense. I mean, if you approximate the circle by interior polygons, you get closer and closer to the value of pi, but always miss it by a small amount. This is perfectly true. However, he then makes a 'bit' of a mistake by saying that this is an error that's bounded above.......


You're right. The true value of Pi is 0.999999... * 3.14159....
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

User avatar
skeptical scientist
closed-minded spiritualist
Posts: 6142
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
Location: San Francisco

Re: New value of pi?

Postby skeptical scientist » Sat Apr 10, 2010 11:27 pm UTC

mike-l wrote:
DavCrav wrote:
The thing is, that he is right in some sense. I mean, if you approximate the circle by interior polygons, you get closer and closer to the value of pi, but always miss it by a small amount. This is perfectly true. However, he then makes a 'bit' of a mistake by saying that this is an error that's bounded above.......


You're right. The true value of Pi is 0.999999... * 3.14159....

No, that's stupid. It should be 3.14159.../0.999...
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.

"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson

User avatar
Talith
Proved the Goldbach Conjecture
Posts: 848
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:28 am UTC
Location: Manchester - UK

Re: New value of pi?

Postby Talith » Sat Apr 10, 2010 11:53 pm UTC

If your totally rigorous it's 3.14159....+1-0.999....

User avatar
Shokk
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:52 pm UTC

Re: New value of pi?

Postby Shokk » Sun Apr 11, 2010 12:27 am UTC

Talith wrote:If your totally rigorous it's 3.14159....+1-0.999....

Well it's actually the quantity:
(3.14159....+1-0.999....)
multiplied by the expression:
1^n + m0
where n and m may or may not represent integers, depending on the weather.

Now are we going to keep dicking around, seriously disprove this guy, or what?
I have a pair of pants.

User avatar
skeptical scientist
closed-minded spiritualist
Posts: 6142
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
Location: San Francisco

Re: New value of pi?

Postby skeptical scientist » Sun Apr 11, 2010 12:51 am UTC

Shokk wrote:Now are we going to keep dicking around, seriously disprove this guy, or what?

Some guy (not Criss Angel) is standing at the edge of a swimming pool saying he can walk on water. Do you bother disproving him, or do you just stand back and enjoy the show?
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.

"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson

User avatar
Talith
Proved the Goldbach Conjecture
Posts: 848
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:28 am UTC
Location: Manchester - UK

Re: New value of pi?

Postby Talith » Sun Apr 11, 2010 12:53 am UTC

Unfortunately in this case he's going to fall in the water and just say the water wasn't deep enough. Now, take him to a lake and it's another story!

User avatar
Shokk
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:52 pm UTC

Re: New value of pi?

Postby Shokk » Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:00 am UTC

skeptical scientist wrote:
Shokk wrote:Now are we going to keep dicking around, seriously disprove this guy, or what?

Some guy (not Criss Angel) is standing at the edge of a swimming pool saying he can walk on water. Do you bother disproving him, or do you just stand back and enjoy the show?

Ahhhhh
Silly me, then.
When do we start throwing peanuts and tomatoes and thorny plants onto the stage or whatever?
I have a pair of pants.

User avatar
Godskalken
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 3:29 pm UTC

Re: New value of pi?

Postby Godskalken » Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:26 am UTC

Why is it that every single crackpot with accompanying crackpot theory must have a website straight out of 1994, complete with a total lack of organization? Pretty sure the design of his website counts as a formal proof that he is wrong.

User avatar
Shokk
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:52 pm UTC

Re: New value of pi?

Postby Shokk » Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:28 am UTC

Godskalken wrote:Why is it that every single crackpot with accompanying crackpot theory must have a website straight out of 1994, complete with a total lack of organization? Pretty sure the design of his website counts as a formal proof that he is wrong.

What if I whip out my Photoshap skills onto his website to make it pretty along with other assorted changes? Will I have provided a counterexample?
I have a pair of pants.

User avatar
Godskalken
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 3:29 pm UTC

Re: New value of pi?

Postby Godskalken » Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:49 am UTC

Shokk wrote:
Godskalken wrote:Why is it that every single crackpot with accompanying crackpot theory must have a website straight out of 1994, complete with a total lack of organization? Pretty sure the design of his website counts as a formal proof that he is wrong.

What if I whip out my Photoshap skills onto his website to make it pretty along with other assorted changes? Will I have provided a counterexample?

I needed to go back and examine my post now. It says every crackpot theory has a crackpot website, and having a "crackpot website" proves that you are wrong (and thus a crackpot, seeing as you are heavily promoting your theory), so the conjecture is

A theory is a "crackpot theory" if and only if it is accompanied by a crackpot website.

A crackpot website is (poorly) defined as a website which is indistinguishable from anything on geocities.com.

So yes, if you published the result as a proper website, complete with its own domain and everything, you would either have disproven my conjecture, or proven that this guy is actually right. But I doubt you will.
Here's an even more amazing example: http://www.jainmathemagics.com/page/10/default.asp

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: New value of pi?

Postby jestingrabbit » Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:05 am UTC

I bet the Jain are more angry than any of us.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
the tree
Posts: 801
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:23 pm UTC
Location: Behind you

Re: New value of pi?

Postby the tree » Sun Apr 11, 2010 1:42 pm UTC

DavCrav wrote:The thing is, that he is right in some sense. I mean, if you approximate the circle by interior polygons, you get closer and closer to the value of pi, but always miss it by a small amount. This is perfectly true. However, he then makes a 'bit' of a mistake by saying that this is an error that's bounded above.......
Thing is, you kind of want your value to be too small if your looking for a decimal expansion. You could always chose for your error to be too big instead by using exterior polygons instead.


Return to “Mathematics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests