Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23

Math Help - Quick's quick question

  1. #1
    MHF Contributor Quick's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2006
    From
    New England
    Posts
    1,024

    Quick's quick question

    is there a fraction form of pi? if there isn't, then how do you find the number? (besides measuring to an infinitely small measurement of course )
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Grand Panjandrum
    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    someplace
    Posts
    14,972
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Quick
    is there a fraction form of pi? if there isn't, then how do you find the number? (besides measuring to an infinitely small measurement of course )
    \pi is irrational first proven by Lambert in 1760 (in fact it is
    transcendental - that is not even algebraic).

    Rational approximations to \pi of arbitary precission can be
    found by a number of methods, the earliest probably being that of
    Archimedes obtained by trapping the area of the unit circle between the
    areas of inscribed and circumscribed regular polygons.

    RonL
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    10
    CaptainBlack you just need to make a simple explanation complicated. Listen to me Quick.
    --
    Okay, first there are not a,b such as,
    \pi =\frac{a}{b}- this means that \pi is irrational. This was proven in 1776 (correction to CaptainBlack) by Lambert.

    The other fact that \pi is transcendental was proven (I think in 1882) by Louiville. Meaning there is no polynomial equation with integers such has it as its solution. For example, \sqrt{2} is irrational but, x^2-2=0 is a polynomial which has it as its root.

    ---
    (CaptainBlack is having a bad day cuz, poor England lost.
    I am having a great day cuz, my team, Germany, is in the semifinals and are probably winning.)
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    10
    To your second question.
    To approximate \pi there are several ways. My favorite is the use of "countinued fractions" it produces the best possible approximate with a certain denominator. Another way, is through "infinite series", for example, Ramanajuan (let him rest in peace) produced the best series ever. It gives approximately 8 decimals places each time used.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Grand Panjandrum
    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    someplace
    Posts
    14,972
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker
    (CaptainBlack is having a bad day cuz, poor England lost.
    1. It was Saturday, all the posts concerned are dated today on my machine
    which is Monday here. Football is not such a big factor in my life that I am
    going to sulk about a result for more than about 10 minutes (after all our
    local team is Portsmouth, so we are used to losing down here)

    2. I thought they played well after Rooney was sent off - showing that
    England is lucky to have gotten rid of Ericson at last.

    3. They have nothing to be ashamed of, they played well, and the result
    is a lottery - but what ya gonna do.

    RonL
    Last edited by CaptainBlack; July 2nd 2006 at 11:33 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Grand Panjandrum
    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    someplace
    Posts
    14,972
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker
    This was proven in 1776 (correction to CaptainBlack) by Lambert.
    My searches give 1761, 1768, 1765, ..

    (can't find the original reference I had which gave 1760 )

    RonL
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    10
    Accoriding to Wikipedia it was 1761, that is what I would accept. I can promise that I seen this number change many times, which is perhaps why you choose 1760. I was right about 1882, that I seen everywhere to be the same. Interesting to why, many authors change this date.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    Grand Panjandrum
    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    someplace
    Posts
    14,972
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker
    Accoriding to Wikipedia it was 1761, that is what I would accept. I can promise that I seen this number change many times, which is perhaps why you choose 1760. I was right about 1882, that I seen everywhere to be the same. Interesting to why, many authors change this date.
    I thought at one point this might have been due to Britain and British North
    America not being on the Gregorian calendar, but that change took place in
    1752, so its not that

    RonL
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    Super Member

    Joined
    May 2006
    From
    Lexington, MA (USA)
    Posts
    11,914
    Thanks
    779
    Like TPHacker, I prefer the continued fractions approach.

    You can create your own rational approximation to \pi.


    We have: . \pi\;=\;3.141592654...\;=\;3 + 0.141592654...

    . . The reciprocal of 0.141592654 is: . \frac{1}{0.141592654}\;=\;7.062573306

    And we have: . \pi \;= \;3 + \frac{1}{7 + 0.062573306}

    . . If we disregard the decimal, we have: .  \pi \;\approx\;3 + \frac{1}{7} \;= \;\frac{22}{7} . . . an old friend.

    We have: . \pi \:\approx\:\frac{22}{7} \:= 3.14 285714...



    The reciprocal of 0.62583306 is: . \frac{1}{0.062573306} \:=\:15.99659441

    And we have: . \pi \;=\;3 + \frac{1}{7 + \frac{1}{15 + 0.99659441}}

    . . If we disrgard the decimal, we have: . \pi \:\approx\:3 + \frac{1}{7 + \frac{1}{15}}\:=\:\frac{333}{106}

    We have: . \pi \:\approx\:\frac{333}{106}\:= 3.1415 09434...



    The reciprocal of 0.99659441 is: . \frac{1}{0.99659441}\:=\:1.003417228

    And we have: . \pi \;= \;3 + \frac{1}{7 + \frac{1}{15 + \frac{1}{1+ 0.003417228}}}}

    . . If we disregard the decimal, we have: . \pi \:\approx\:3 + \frac{1}{7 + \frac{1}{15 + \frac{1}{1}}}} \:=\:\frac{355}{113}

    We have: . \pi \:\approx\:\frac{355}{113}\:= 3.141592 92

    This is the next popular approximation, noting that we have: . 1\text{-}1\text{-}3\text{-}3\text{-}5\text{-}5
    . . and we have accuracy to the nearest millionth.


    You can take this further if you like . . . I'll wait in the car.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    Grand Panjandrum
    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    someplace
    Posts
    14,972
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Soroban
    Like TPHacker, I prefer the continued fractions approach.

    You can create your own rational approximation to \pi.


    We have: . \pi\;=\;3.141592654...\;=\;3 + 0.141592654...

    . . The reciprocal of 0.141592654 is: . \frac{1}{0.141592654}\;=\;7.062573306

    And we have: . \pi \;= \;3 + \frac{1}{7 + 0.062573306}

    . . If we disregard the decimal, we have: .  \pi \;\approx\;3 + \frac{1}{7} \;= \;\frac{22}{7} . . . an old friend.

    We have: . \pi \:\approx\:\frac{22}{7} \:= 3.14 285714...



    The reciprocal of 0.62583306 is: . \frac{1}{0.062573306} \:=\:15.99659441

    And we have: . \pi \;=\;3 + \frac{1}{7 + \frac{1}{15 + 0.99659441}}

    . . If we disrgard the decimal, we have: . \pi \:\approx\:3 + \frac{1}{7 + \frac{1}{15}}\:=\:\frac{333}{106}

    We have: . \pi \:\approx\:\frac{333}{106}\:= 3.1415 09434...



    The reciprocal of 0.99659441 is: . \frac{1}{0.99659441}\:=\:1.003417228

    And we have: . \pi \;= \;3 + \frac{1}{7 + \frac{1}{15 + \frac{1}{1+ 0.003417228}}}}

    . . If we disregard the decimal, we have: . \pi \:\approx\:3 + \frac{1}{7 + \frac{1}{15 + \frac{1}{1}}}} \:=\:\frac{355}{113}

    We have: . \pi \:\approx\:\frac{355}{113}\:= 3.141592 92

    This is the next popular approximation, noting that we have: . 1\text{-}1\text{-}3\text{-}3\text{-}5\text{-}5
    . . and we have accuracy to the nearest millionth.


    You can take this further if you like . . . I'll wait in the car.
    Now I expect you will think I'm being picky, but I find something unsatisfying
    in the construction the continued fraction expansion from the decimal expansion.

    The rational approximations should be (at least if it is going to satisfy my
    sense of aesthetics) produced directly from the definition and/or some
    closed form expressible property of \pi.

    RonL
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #11
    MHF Contributor Quick's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2006
    From
    New England
    Posts
    1,024

    Cool Quick's Approximation

    While I was reading your posts, I came up with my own approximation..which is \pi\approx3.14159265358979

    I got it by using this formula, which I created for this purpose.
    \frac{n}{d}\left(d\sin\frac{360}{2n}\right)
    this formula is for any regular polygon, d over 2 is the distance from the center of the polygon to any corner and n is the number of sides.

    note: I used n=9\cdot10^{99} which is the closest to a circle I could get with excel.

    How accurate is my approximation?
    Last edited by Quick; July 3rd 2006 at 04:10 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  12. #12
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    10
    Pi does have a number of interesing appearances.

    1-\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{5}-\frac{1}{7}+...=\frac{\pi}{4}

    \zeta(2)=1+\frac{1}{2^2}+\frac{1}{3^2}+...=\frac{ \pi }{6}

    \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e^{-x^2}dx=\sqrt{\pi}

    \Gamma(1/2)=\sqrt{\pi}
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  13. #13
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Oct 2005
    From
    Earth
    Posts
    1,599
    Aren't the last two kind of repetitive PH?

    \Gamma(z)=2\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-t^2}t^{2z-1}dz
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  14. #14
    Super Member

    Joined
    May 2006
    From
    Lexington, MA (USA)
    Posts
    11,914
    Thanks
    779
    Another representation . . .

    \frac{4}{\pi} \;= \;1 + \frac{1^2}{2 + \frac{3^2}{2 + \frac{5^2}{2 + \frac{7^2}{2 + \cdots} }}}}


    I found some history on various approximations.

    3 . . . . . value implied by I Kings vii, 23

    \frac{22}{7} . . . . upper bound found by Archimedes, 3rd century B.C.

    \frac{333}{106} . . . lower found found by Adriaan Anthoniszoon, ca. 1583

    \frac{355}{113} . . . found by Valentinus Otho, 1573
    . . . . . . also Anthoniszoon, Metius and Viete (all 16th century)


    Further approximations were found by Johann Heinrich Lambert (1728 - 1777)

    \frac{103,993}{33,102} \quad\frac{104,348}{33,215} \quad\frac{208,341}{66,317} \quad\frac{312,689}{99,532} \quad\frac{833,719}{265,381} \quad etc.<br />



    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  15. #15
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Soroban
    3 . . . . . value implied by I Kings vii, 23
    I believe it is
    Kings 1:22:7

    And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other; it was round all about, and its height was five cubits; a line of thirty cubits did compass it around

    It is possible that we disagree perhaps, you follow the King James Version, I was following the original Bible Text.

    Which makes it interesing cuz, if you divide the verse by the chapter you get, 22/7.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. quick question
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 23rd 2009, 09:28 PM
  2. Quick question
    Posted in the Pre-Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 30th 2008, 05:09 PM
  3. Quick question
    Posted in the Algebra Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 13th 2008, 04:51 PM
  4. Quick Question - SPP, CPP, TSP
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 17th 2007, 09:49 PM
  5. How many squares? quick quick quick!
    Posted in the Math Challenge Problems Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: December 10th 2007, 09:11 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum