Pi Day Misconception: Is Pi an Irrational Number?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Revin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pi
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the misconception regarding the nature of pi as an irrational number. When measuring the circumference of a circle, even if one uses a thread to match the circle's length, the measurement will never be exact due to practical limitations. This means that dividing the measured circumference by the diameter (14 cm in this case) will yield an approximation, not the true value of pi. The inherent inaccuracies in measurement and the physical properties of materials prevent achieving a rational result. Thus, pi remains an irrational number despite attempts to calculate it through measurements.
Revin
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Happy Pi day folks !
Heres a general misconception I am having. It might turn out to be a pretty easy question so please do help me.

If i pull out my compass to a radius of 7 cm and draw a circle on a paper. Then i'll take a piece of thread and cut it such that it matches exactly with the circle on paper and take the length of that particular thread and divide by 14cm, should i get the value of pi ?

If its so, why isn't pi an irrational number. After all I am dividing the circumfrence I've got by 14 cm.
So it should a rational number.

For example, if the circumfrence is 50.123456 cm ( I've not measured yet just an example)
And i divide it by 14cm

I shall get 50123456/14000000 as value of pi, which is supposedly rational ?

Is it an contradiction ? :eek:
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Revin said:
Happy Pi day folks !
Happy Pi day to you too! (And welcome to PF!) :smile:

(this is a message from the future … it's actually Pi-plus-one day here … are you in Alaska?)
For example, if the circumfrence is 50.123456 cm ( I've not measured yet just an example) …

But your measurement won't be an exact rational number, will it?

No matter to how many decimal places you try to measure it, you'll always find a little left over! :wink:
 
Revin said:
For example, if the circumfrence is 50.123456 cm ( I've not measured yet just an example)

How would you manage to measure it to such precision? There are many reasons why an irrational number like pi will be approximated to a rational number with real world measurements. Hypothetically, it should be pi, but realistically, it's impossible to do.
 
Revin said:
Happy Pi day folks !
Heres a general misconception I am having. It might turn out to be a pretty easy question so please do help me.

If i pull out my compass to a radius of 7 cm and draw a circle on a paper. Then i'll take a piece of thread and cut it such that it matches exactly with the circle on paper and take the length of that particular thread and divide by 14cm, should i get the value of pi ?

If its so, why isn't pi an irrational number.
You mean why is pi an irrational number. Or why isn't pi a rational number.

After all I am dividing the circumfrence I've got by 14 cm.
So it should a rational number.

For example, if the circumfrence is 50.123456 cm ( I've not measured yet just an example)
And i divide it by 14cm

I shall get 50123456/14000000 as value of pi, which is supposedly rational ?

Is it an contradiction ? :eek:
No, a "measurement" is never exact. When you talk about "lengths" in geometry you are not talking about measurements.
 
Mentallic said:
Hypothetically, it should be pi, but realistically, it's impossible to do.

Also unrealistic:
- That the circle's radius is exactly 7 cm.
- That this circle drawn with a compass truly is a circle.
 
D H said:
Also unrealistic:
- That the circle's radius is exactly 7 cm.
- That this circle drawn with a compass truly is a circle.

Also
- The thread perfectly tracing the circle.
- The thread perfectly maintaining that same length after being stretched out straight.
- The ruler being perfect.


Even the thread's physical properties are limiting the perfectness of this imperfect exercise.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Back
Top