Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Is Q really a Japanese man named Haraguchi?

todd2000 said:
How did you arrive at that figure?
Click to expand...

i stopwatched it at 100000 decimals and then calculated on for the time of 10 million billion. (thats fun to say) im positive that it will run much faster on my g5.
also the program might crash a bunch on an intel machine. i say this caus it has for me.
 
pknz said:
Mmmmmmm pie!
Click to expand...

Did someone say pie????? :D

800px-FoodApplePie.jpg



Y-U-M!!! :D
 
todd2000 said:
Im calulating to 1 Billion on my iMac, I just wish piX was univerasl, would probably speed things up a a bit, as it is it will probably take weeks :). Literally.

P.S. How do I tell if it's using 1 core or 2?
Click to expand...
Calculating to 1 billion places. Needless to say, its taking its time.
Both cores maxed at 97% and my MBP hasn't skipped a beat (safari, iChat, Mail, Text Edit, Pages, and, of course, PiX)
 
Rokem said:
wow is that your logic or somebody else's? and thats some pretty serrious info. now i just need i way to find credit card card numbers, which i believe would be possible as lets just say visa in example uses an algorithim to produce card numbers. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Somebody else's. I just pass on the gossip.

is this true for all irrational numbers?
Click to expand...
I believe it's true for any transcendental number, but maybe not for all irrationals. If you give me a few days, I'll check them all. Then again, maybe I'm just being irrational about it.
 
Pecan. Apple's nice, too. Especially with cinnamon. Poll: pi or pie. State your preference.
 
Well, how about an Apple Pie?

I downloaded the piX thingy, but it's a .dmg.sit file... WTH? It won't open.:confused:
 
Depends on the calculator. A lot of the current breed are about 16 point rounding, some increase resolution during calculation, and then reduce back to the 16 (or whatever) points on presenting/storing the answer.

It's actually listed in some of the manuals now, for those of us geeky enough to care...

<edit - if memory serves, my HP 48g is a 12 point rounding. I think the TI 89-Ti's are at 16 right now.
 
eva01 said:
So Dr. Q, question about calculators.

How many decimal places do the graphic calculators go to. like the TI 86
Click to expand...
The TI-86 stores 14 decimal digits and a 3-digit exponent in memory but displays less so you don't see the least accurate digits of precision.

Doctor Q said:
I believe it's true for any transcendental number, but maybe not for all irrationals.
Click to expand...
After more thought, I conclude that any sequence of digits can be found within any irrational number, not just within the transcendental numbers. The difference between the two classes is that transcendentals are never the roots of polynomials with integer coefficients, but that doesn't matter when your goal is to find credit card numbers within the digit sequences. :)
 
Doctor Q said:
Yes, which means that anybody who wants to can see your credit card number, expiration date, and even that little security code on the back, just by looking at enough digits of pi.

In fact, I'm gonna buy myself some new Mac equipment using that knowledge right now!
Click to expand...

well, that's true for any irrational number (ie, e, sqrt(2), etc.)
 
I once had my computer calculate pi to the billionth decimal place and had it on my website too! Unfortunately, it was causing some severe fragmentation on my hard drive so I deleted the file. :(

250 mil ... next best thing.
 
I wonder if the Star Trek computer has finished computing pi to the last digit, as Mr. Spock told it to in the "Wolf in the Fold" episode of the original series?

Actually, the answer must obviously be no, for the simple reason that it takes place in the future so it hasn't started computing yet!

Speaking of the last digit of pi, here's my proof of what it is:

A. Consider this statement:
The last digit of pi is a "1".​
B. That statement is clearly false.

C. Similarly, these statements are false:
The last digit of pi is a "2".
The last digit of pi is a "3".
The last digit of pi is a "4".
The last digit of pi is a "5".
The last digit of pi is a "6".
The last digit of pi is a "7".
The last digit of pi is a "8".
The last digit of pi is a "9".​
D. Therefore, by the process of elimination, the last digit must be a "0"!

QED (short for Q's exasperating diversions)
 
According to the Los Angeles Times:
Pi is a physical constant defined as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. It is usually written out to a maximum of three decimal places, as 3.141.
Click to expand...
Who says 3.141!?

I've heard 3.14, 3.14159, and longer versions, but who stops at 3.141? And wouldn't you at least round it off to 3.142?

Akira Haraguchi gets 100,000 digits correct, and the newspaper can't get 3!
 
To the poster that said you are guaranteed to see any sequence of numbers within the digits of pi, because pi has infinitely many digits.. well.. no, you're not guaranteed. The probability of this happening _approaches_ 100%, but is not actually 100%.
 
cait-sith said:
To the poster that said you are guaranteed to see any sequence of numbers within the digits of pi, because pi has infinitely many digits.. well.. no, you're not guaranteed. The probability of this happening _approaches_ 100%, but is not actually 100%.
Click to expand...
Doesn't that mean the same thing? If you gave any percentage less than 100%, no matter how close to 100%, couldn't it be proven that the chances that a given finite sequence occurs within pi is more than that percentage? And couldn't that be called a guarantee?

If it's just a matter of defining terms ("guarantee") to make it true, my question is unnecessary, but I think it's a good question if we want an answer in a rigorous mathematical sense.

The chance that a given finite sequence is not in pi is less than epsilon for any epsilon, and the only nonnegative number that is less than any positive number is 0, not just 0 as a limit. So the probabily that a sequence is not within pi is 0, meaning the sequence must be within pi.
 
Doctor Q said:
Doesn't that mean the same thing? If you gave any percentage less than 100%, no matter how close to 100%, couldn't it be proven that the chances that a given finite sequence occurs within pi is more than that percentage? And couldn't that be called a guarantee?

If it's just a matter of defining terms ("guarantee") to make it true, my question is unnecessary, but I think it's a good question if we want an answer in a rigorous mathematical sense.

The chance that a given finite sequence is not in pi is less than epsilon for any epsilon, and the only nonnegative number that is less than any positive number is 0, not just 0 as a limit. So the probabily that a sequence is not within pi is 0, meaning the sequence must be within pi.
Click to expand...


just like how .99999999999999 repeating = 1 exactly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back