- #1

- 4

- 0

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- I
- Thread starter Jatin Kaushal
- Start date

- #1

- 4

- 0

- #2

mfb

Mentor

- 35,337

- 11,645

You first need a definition of pi. Everything else (what exactly do you want? Its numerical value?) has to start from there.

- #3

ProfuselyQuarky

Gold Member

- 817

- 527

You mean pi in relation to a circle or the digits of pi?

- #4

- 4

- 0

- #5

ProfuselyQuarky

Gold Member

- 817

- 527

That requires computation on software....Maple can do about 10,000 digits instantly.

Last edited:

- #6

mfb

Mentor

- 35,337

- 11,645

- #7

ProfuselyQuarky

Gold Member

- 817

- 527

For fun:

- #8

NascentOxygen

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

- 9,244

- 1,072

Take a tiled floor and scatter a handful of nails or satay sticks, mix with lots of patience, and you can

Don't expect many places of accuracy at first, but to improve on this, rinse and repeat many times.

And did I mention that you'll need lots of patience?

Last edited by a moderator:

- #9

256bits

Gold Member

- 3,375

- 1,409

Lovely. Used to Play Pick Up Sticks. Never would have guessed Pi was involved.

- #10

NascentOxygen

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

- 9,244

- 1,072

Next, scatter lots of dots at random all over the square; keep a count and call this number S dots. Count how many of those random dots fall inside the circle, call this number C. Then the ratio C/S gives us the ratio of the areas of the two figures, viz., Pi/4.

The more dots you scatter, the more accurate the resultant estimate for Pi. Repeat this multiple times to improve the result even further.

I like this method, because after performing it 7 or 8 times you can apply a law of statistics to produce an estimate of Pi to much better precision than you would expect.

- #11

- 529

- 28

Next, scatter lots of dots at random all over the square; keep a count and call this number S dots. Count how many of those random dots fall inside the circle, call this number C. Then the ratio C/S gives us the ratio of the areas of the two figures, viz., Pi/4.

The more dots you scatter, the more accurate the resultant estimate for Pi. Repeat this multiple times to improve the result even further.

I like this method, because after performing it 7 or 8 times you can apply a law of statistics to produce an estimate of Pi to much better precision than you would expect.

I do this with my students for a fun activity every year. With enough drops you can easily get three of four decimals correct. What is your trick for improving precision?

- #12

mfb

Mentor

- 35,337

- 11,645

- #13

NascentOxygen

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

- 9,244

- 1,072

Which provides an incentive to improve the procedure by reducing the labor involved! You don't need the full common central area, so you can eliminate the circle's inscribed square from the picture. And you don't need 4 areas, all identical---just one will do. This leaves us with a 3-sided figure containing a circle segment: the competing areas to be covered with dots now being roughly equal.but it doesn't sound like fun to do it manually.

I'm not sure how to prove it mathematically, but I have a notion that when there is not a big difference in the two competing areas then Monte Carlo gives us better accuracy with fewer random dots. I think I decided that by taking the ratio C/S for this modified figure, and doubling it, we have the fractional portion of Pi, i.e., our estimate to ⋅14159

- #14

mfb

Mentor

- 35,337

- 11,645

I can help, because we have a binomial distribution with variance ##N p q## whereas the central value is Np or Nq. You gain much more from removing areas, however - going to a triangle makes the final formula ##\pi = 2 + 2 \frac{inside}{total}##, so the relative uncertainty now applies to a smaller value (~1.14 instead of 3.14). You could now start to cut away a triangle from the outer part as well, going to ##\pi = 2 + 1.3 \frac{inside}{total}## and so on. Effectively you are approximating pi with the areas itself then, the closer you get with one of the areas the better.I'm not sure how to prove it mathematically, but I have a notion that when the areas are less dissimilar then Monte Carlo gives us better accuracy with fewer random dots.

- #15

- 529

- 28

I should correct my earlier comment: I meant that I often have accurate answers. I usually only do this experiment in classes that are not advanced enough to understand variance and estimating errors. Most of the time we have gotten decently good values with about 200-500 points per class.

- #16

NascentOxygen

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

- 9,244

- 1,072

Most of the time we have gotten decently good values with about 200-500 points per class.

- #17

mfb

Mentor

- 35,337

- 11,645

- #18

- 6

- 3

- #19

- #20

mfb

Mentor

- 35,337

- 11,645

Sure, you can use a ruler. Other methods are just more accurate.

- #21

NascentOxygen

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

- 9,244

- 1,072

During the French Revolution the revolutionaries declared that the value of Pi was to have a value of exactly 3 to simplify calculations so mathematics would no longer be the preserve of the hated intellectual elite.wouldn't it be possible to derive the number pi just by knowing that it should be equal to a circle's circumference divided by its diameter

I'm not sure how long this edict remained in place until it was quietly rescinded.

- #22

mathwonk

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

2020 Award

- 11,113

- 1,317

- #23

arydberg

Gold Member

- 239

- 29

Share: