Pi doesnt have reapting random digits

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter fizzzzzzzzzzzy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pi Random
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of Pi, particularly its representation in measurements of circles and the implications of its irrationality. Participants explore the concept of measuring physical circles, the limitations of such measurements, and the distinction between mathematical and physical representations of Pi.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that Pi cannot be a fraction due to its infinite and non-repeating digits, suggesting that physical measurements of circles must also reflect this property.
  • Others propose that measuring a circle's circumference and diameter to the atomic level would yield exact values, challenging the notion that Pi must be irrational in practical applications.
  • A participant mentions the Greek discovery of irrational numbers, such as the square root of 2, to argue against the idea that all numbers can be expressed as fractions.
  • Some participants assert that a true circle cannot exist physically due to the requirement of infinite fine-graining, which contradicts the nature of atoms.
  • There are claims that all numbers, including finite measurements, have an infinite number of decimal places, emphasizing the theoretical nature of exact measurements.
  • Concerns are raised about the assumptions made regarding the uniformity of atoms and the feasibility of measuring circles with them.
  • One participant highlights the distinction between mathematical concepts and physical objects, asserting that a circle is a mathematical abstraction rather than a physical entity.
  • Another participant notes that Pi has been proven to be both irrational and transcendental, reinforcing its complexity in mathematical terms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the nature of Pi or the implications of measuring circles. Disagreements persist regarding the feasibility of exact measurements and the interpretation of Pi in both mathematical and physical contexts.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include assumptions about the nature of physical measurements, the definition of circles, and the implications of quantum mechanics on measurement accuracy. The discussion does not resolve these complexities.

  • #61
Data said:
Does the fact that it was not obvious to Zeno that the sum over k from 1 to n of (1/2)^k converges to 1 as n goes to infinity make it the case that this series does not converge to 1? Just because you can't tell what something is converging to by looking at it doesn't mean that it doesn't converge.



I am not agreeing with or repeating your statements. In fact I explicitly disagree with the statements in the preceding quotation. A circle of radius 1 has circumference equal to exactly 2pi. The real number "pi" is just as "exact" as the real number "1." If I like, I can choose to express numbers in terms of sums of powers of pi with coefficients chosen to be smaller than pi, in which case pi = 10, 2pi = 20, 2 pi^2 = 200, and 1=1. Of course, in this representation, what is 4? Not pretty!

Pi cannot be used as a base for any useful purpose. Whenever you convert ANY number in base Pi to decimal (basically the only useful base aside from computer science applications) you will get a number just as random as Pi!

I am also explicitly disagreeing with you. Pi is NOT exact! Therefore a circumference of 2Pi is NOT exact! Where would you plot the point when Theta=Pi on your graph of the circle? Wherever you plot it, it is wrong!

Dave
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
daveyp225 said:
I am also explicitly disagreeing with you. Pi is NOT exact! Therefore a circumference of 2Pi is NOT exact! Where would you plot the point when Theta=Pi on your graph of the circle? Wherever you plot it, it is wrong!

Dave

You seem to have trouble distinguishing between mathematics and applications of mathematics (applications are, of necessity, approximate as opposed to the exact definitions of mathematics).
Pi is a specific number. It is every bit as "exact" as 1 or 3 or 1/2. It's value does NOT depend upon actually measuring some physical object approximating a circle.'

Even if we were to look at a circle made up atoms of a specific type (which, I've just said is irrelevant to the mathematical value of pi), it seems to me we would have difficulty (remembering the quantum nature of such things) determining exactly where one atom ends and another begins- so the nature of such a circle is not as clear as you might think.
 
  • #63
HallsofIvy said:
You seem to have trouble distinguishing between mathematics and applications of mathematics (applications are, of necessity, approximate as opposed to the exact definitions of mathematics).
Pi is a specific number. It is every bit as "exact" as 1 or 3 or 1/2. It's value does NOT depend upon actually measuring some physical object approximating a circle.'

Even if we were to look at a circle made up atoms of a specific type (which, I've just said is irrelevant to the mathematical value of pi), it seems to me we would have difficulty (remembering the quantum nature of such things) determining exactly where one atom ends and another begins- so the nature of such a circle is not as clear as you might think.
Just because I am arguing something doesn't mean I believe it. Did Zeno believe motion was impossible? Of course I can picture a perfect circle in my head, and there are no gaps in its graph. I was just having a bit of fun with the terminology. There's nothing wrong with that. Many discoveries came from just challenging what was, at the time, an unchallengeable idea.

Dave
 
  • #64
On the other hand if Zeno had said "Motion is impossible because the sky is blue" no one would have paid any attention to him. "Challenging" something with patently invalid arguments isn't helpful.
 
  • #65
HallsofIvy said:
On the other hand if Zeno had said "Motion is impossible because the sky is blue" no one would have paid any attention to him. "Challenging" something with patently invalid arguments isn't helpful.
What is so invalid about Pi not being exact? What is so invalid about saying you cannot plot an exact point on a polar graph when Theta = Pi? And for those of you who believe it is exact and finite, where is your proof? Just to make clear, I mean finite in the sense that it has a definite value, not an unbounded one.
 
  • #66
Your problem, I believe, is that you have your own pet meaning of the word "exact".

In any case, this seems to have gone on quite far enough.
 
  • #67
What kind of proof would you accept? pi is a specific value. It is, among other things, half the fundamental period of f(x)= sin(x) which can be defined and calculated without reference to geometry. pi can be shown to be equal to the sum of certain infinite series- and it is well known that if a series has a sum, then it is unique. There's nothing more precise than that!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K