Just Some Theorizing for Pi Enthusiasts

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ohshiznit422
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pi
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around various approximations of π (pi) using roots and other mathematical expressions. Participants explore different methods of approximating π, including the use of cube roots, logarithmic relationships, and rational approximations. The scope includes theoretical exploration and mathematical reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the cube root of 31 is a good approximation for π and discusses how the percent error decreases with higher roots.
  • Another participant questions the validity of a limit expression proposed by the first, suggesting a different formulation and noting that while it is true, it lacks mathematical utility.
  • A third participant states that the expression $$\sqrt[n]{\pi ^n} = \pi$$ holds true for all integers n ≥ 2, emphasizing that rounding before raising to the power can introduce inaccuracies.
  • One participant introduces a new approximation involving the expression 462*(e^π) and its logarithmic relationship to π.
  • Another participant critiques the practicality of the logarithmic approximation, arguing that memorizing digits of π would be more straightforward for high precision calculations.
  • Several participants express their preference for the rational approximation 355/113, with one noting its practical utility despite being inaccurate beyond the seventh decimal place.
  • Another participant acknowledges the approximation's practical error in real-world applications, suggesting it is acceptable for certain uses.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the usefulness and accuracy of various approximations of π. While some agree on the validity of certain mathematical expressions, there is no consensus on the best method or the practical implications of these approximations.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in their approximations, including the effects of rounding and the need for high precision in calculations involving π. There are unresolved questions regarding the mathematical utility of certain expressions and the accuracy of approximations in practical scenarios.

ohshiznit422
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
So I heard someone say that the cube root of 31 is a good approximation for ∏. This led me to thinking about higher roots and approximations.

ψ denotes the nearest whole number

\pi^{2} \approx 9.86960440109
ψ=10
\sqrt[2]{10}=3.16227766017

\pi^{3} \approx 31.00627668029
ψ=31
\sqrt[3]{31}=3.14138065239

\pi^{4} \approx 97.40909103400
ψ=97
\sqrt[4]{97}=3.13828899272

The percent error gets smaller as the root increases.

Is it then valid to say:

limit as x->∞
\sqrt[x]{ψ\pi^{x}} = \pi
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
ohshiznit422 said:
So I heard someone say that the cube root of 31 is a good approximation for ∏. This led me to thinking about higher roots and approximations.

ψ denotes the nearest whole number

\pi^{2} \approx 9.86960440109
ψ=10
\sqrt[2]{10}=3.16227766017

\pi^{3} \approx 31.00627668029
ψ=31
\sqrt[3]{31}=3.14138065239

\pi^{4} \approx 97.40909103400
ψ=97
\sqrt[4]{97}=3.13828899272

The percent error gets smaller as the root increases.

Is it then valid to say:

limit as x->∞
\sqrt[x]{ψ\pi^{x}} = \pi

There's an error in this. Did you mean this: ##\lim_{x \to \infty}[\pi^x]^{\frac{1}{x}} = \pi##, where ##[]## represents the "nearest integer function"?

If so, it's true, but also trivial. You can represent ##[\pi^x]## as ##\pi^x + \delta##, where ##\delta## is a small positive or negative real number such that ##0<\delta<1## and of course ##\delta <<\pi^x##. After that, use a binomial expansion to see this. But there is no mathematical utility here - there is no guarantee that increasing x will necessarily improve the accuracy of the approximation, because you haven't proven it.
 
Last edited:
It's better to say this:
$$\sqrt[n]{\pi ^n} = \pi$$

This is true for all integers n ≥ 2, which makes it also true in the limit as n → ∞. Rounding before raising to the power inside the radical makes the result a little off from what you would get in the formula above.
 
Here is another approximation I found that i have not seen anywhere.

462*(e^pi) almost equals 10691

so ln(10691/462) almost equals pi to around 8 places if i remembered correctly.
 
You had to memorize eight digits (10691 and 462) and need to calculate a logarithm. You were better off just memorizing the eight first digits of pi.

Your OP claim is correct but it's not clear how you would use it in practice - if I want to take pi to the 100th power for example and round it to the nearest integer, I need to know what pi is to extraordinary precision already
 
my favorite is still 355/113 = 3.1415929203539823008849557522124
 
coolul007 said:
my favorite is still 355/113 = 3.1415929203539823008849557522124
It may be your favourite but it's still wrong by the time you get to the 7th decimal place, beyond which we were taught at school!
 
Last edited:
oay said:
It may be your favourite but it's still wrong by the time you get to the 7th decimal place, beyond which we we taught at school!

Of course it's wrong, It's still a good practical approximation. a one kilometer diameter circular arc would be off by

1,000,000 mm x pi = 3141592.6535897932384626433832795
1,000,000 mm x 355/113 = 3141592.9203539823008849557522124

with a difference of 0.2667641890624223123689328864963 mm

a practical error I can live with
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
coolul007 said:
Of course it's wrong, It's still a good practical approximation.
Of course it's a good practical measure - but is it a good enough one...!?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K