3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 10582097494459230781640628620899862

T

Tao_Equus

Guest
Sir, I send a rhyme excelling
In sacred truth and rigid spelling
Numerical sprites elucidate
For me the lexicon's full weight


Yes ... you guessed it... its Pi day!!

A nice simple reminder that infinity is real and a reminder than man is destined to go round in circles forever!!

It has been calculated to 1.25 trillion places yet still evades capture. Its found as a constant in so many areas of science, maths, statistics and more that have nothing to do with circles and so some people think it holds some divine key. But to me it counterpoints that no matter what we learn and know there is always more.

Dont mess with the circles!!
 

Attachments

  • PiPie.jpg
    PiPie.jpg
    2.9 KB · Views: 472
Re: 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 105820974944592307816406286208

I saw a guy I believe from your side of the pond recite pi to 20,000 characters. Took him 6 hours I believe.

He said he sees numbers as shapes and then just watches the shapes go by in front of him...

I couldn't find a blueberry pie, so we had cherry instead.
 
Re: 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 105820974944592307816406286208

Happy Pi Day Tao!

Happy Pi day to you too!!

(And its been great seeing you post again past couple of days :) )
 
Re: 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 105820974944592307816406286208

∏!!!!!
 
Re: 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 105820974944592307816406286208

:D
∏ ∏ ∏ ∏ the you see the more you try :p
 
Re: 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 105820974944592307816406286208

In calculating the area of a circle it is most handy but my helper keeps telling me that pi r not square, pi r round!
 
Re: 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 105820974944592307816406286208

3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640628620899862...

Yeah that's right but you forgot ...80348253421170679
8214808651328230664709384460955058223172535940812848111745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196
4428810975665933446128475648233786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273
724587006606315588174881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146951941511609...
 
Re: 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 105820974944592307816406286208

A nice simple reminder that infinity is real and a reminder than man is destined to go round in circles forever!!
I see two false assumptions there:

1. PI does not necessarily mean anything is infinite. A number like 1/3 or .333333333333... does not mean infinity is real anymore than PI does. If you take anything physical and divide it into a perfect third you will not need an infinite number of digits unless there were an infinite number of particles. Nothing on Earth has the capacity to list an infinite number of digits.

A need for an infinite number of digits in PI would be for a perferct circle of essentially an infinite number of particles. I don't see any a-round.

2. Man is not necessarily destined to go round in circles forever and all evidence here indicates not. Basic thermodynamics: the use of energy is a one way trip just as time is a one way trip. Energy itself is not being recycled.
 
Re: 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 105820974944592307816406286208

I see two false assumptions there:
Now theres a suprise!!

1. PI does not necessarily mean anything is infinite. A number like 1/3 or .333333333333... does not mean infinity is real anymore than PI does. If you take anything physical and divide it into a perfect third you will not need an infinite number of digits unless there were an infinite number of particles. Nothing on Earth has the capacity to list an infinite number of digits.
How do you know there are not an infinite amount of particles? Earth is the multiverse?

A need for an infinite number of digits in PI would be for a perferct circle of essentially an infinite number of particles. I don't see any a-round.
You have already stated a belief in the unprovable, I'm sure if you stretch your imagination just a little further....

2. Man is not necessarily destined to go round in circles forever and all evidence here indicates not. Basic thermodynamics: the use of energy is a one way trip just as time is a one way trip. Energy itself is not being recycled.
Have you considered this entropy is a recycling process into hidden dimensions? Do you really believe we know all the laws of physics?

Tao
 
Re: 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 105820974944592307816406286208

How do you know there are not an infinite amount of particles? Earth is the multiverse?
Good to see you asking questions, Tao. I like questions. Nothing is infinite. Seriously, there is an infinite amount of nothing. You keep insisting that something is infinite despite the fact that nothing is already infinite. Perhaps you think of nothing as being something.

You have already stated a belief in the unprovable, I'm sure if you stretch your imagination just a little further....
Negative... I stated that I proved that God exists and certainly you can too.

Have you considered this entropy is a recycling process into hidden dimensions? Do you really believe we know all the laws of physics?
Good to see you holding out, believing in something you have not seen. The entropy is like pages of a book that have been written on... but forever recorded.

Personally I have never seen energy recycling here, also known as perpetual motion, but if so then it would be a dramatic change in the physics of everything. Energy would be free and polution and global warming would be a concern of the past.
 
Re: 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 105820974944592307816406286208

In calculating the area of a circle it is most handy but my helper keeps telling me that pi r not square, pi r round!

That's right, cornbread are square where I come from, pie are round.
 
Re: 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 105820974944592307816406286208

Good to see you asking questions, Tao. I like questions. Nothing is infinite. Seriously, there is an infinite amount of nothing. You keep insisting that something is infinite despite the fact that nothing is already infinite. Perhaps you think of nothing as being something.
That we cannot measure the infinite that does not imply that it is not a fact. On the contrary things like the value of Pi demonstrate that the idea of the infinite can be inferred from what we can measure. I will leave believing that nothing is something to you :)

Negative... I stated that I proved that God
Not to me you didn't.

Good to see you holding out, believing in something you have not seen. The entropy is like pages of a book that have been written on... but forever recorded.
Who says I believe? A hypothesis does not a fact make. How do the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy explain the particles that make hawking radiation? Hawking radiation seems to be the opposite of entropy, something appearing from nothing. To quote Professor Sir Martin Rees, Britain's Astronomer Royal, "we have achieved remarkable things in the 200,000 years since we evolved for life on the African plains but it is probable we are just not adapted to see all there is to see." As we probe ever further into the mysteries of the universe we will force some adaptations, but even then new sets of questions will doubtlessly face us.

Personally I have never seen energy recycling here, also known as perpetual motion, but if so then it would be a dramatic change in the physics of everything. Energy would be free and polution and global warming would be a concern of the past.
Have you seen seen the universe stop? Did you see it begin? You believe in God, where did that entity begin? We are only on the first tentative footsteps to finding a relationship between the atomic and quantum yet time after time you hold up one set of ideas as though they explain everything. They do not. But perhaps in time a breakthrough will indeed come that allows us to use what we do know for systems as chaotic as climate. In the meantime...have a slice of Pi.

Tao
 
Re: 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 105820974944592307816406286208

That we cannot measure the infinite that does not imply that it is not a fact. On the contrary things like the value of Pi demonstrate that the idea of the infinite can be inferred from what we can measure. I will leave believing that nothing is something to you :)
If PI were infinite then the value would be greater than 4. Anything can be divided into pieces of nothing to be infinite. Nothing is infinite. In the space between two words there is an infinite amount of nothing. In the time between two raindrops landing there is an infinite amount of nothing. Nothing is infinite everywhere, anytime, of any thing. There is no shortage of nothing. Nothing is infinite.

Not to me you didn't.
If you were a scientist or engineer you would know that nobody proves anything without doing the experiment themselves.

Who says I believe?
Oh sorry I hope I did not assume it. Perish the thought. I wasn't the one discussing unseen dimensions but I guess they are back off the table because you believe only in what you can see.

A hypothesis does not a fact make. How do the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy explain the particles that make hawking radiation? Hawking radiation seems to be the opposite of entropy, something appearing from nothing. To quote Professor Sir Martin Rees, Britain's Astronomer Royal, "we have achieved remarkable things in the 200,000 years since we evolved for life on the African plains but it is probable we are just not adapted to see all there is to see." As we probe ever further into the mysteries of the universe we will force some adaptations, but even then new sets of questions will doubtlessly face us.
There you go again describing something that nobody has ever seen. Black hole thermodynamics and event horizon theories come from applying locally observed laws. Laws of science or laws of God... either way if I am wrong then produce the person who has seen and thus proved that Hawking radiation is counter to the observed laws of thermodynamics.

Have you seen seen the universe stop? Did you see it begin? You believe in God, where did that entity begin? We are only on the first tentative footsteps to finding a relationship between the atomic and quantum yet time after time you hold up one set of ideas as though they explain everything. They do not. But perhaps in time a breakthrough will indeed come that allows us to use what we do know for systems as chaotic as climate. In the meantime...have a slice of Pi.
Thank you, I'll give you a slice of cyber-pi: Thermodynamics is not just a theory. It is easily observed. What I state about entropy is more complex than just thermodynamics. In communication and information theory (and practice) if I wish to maximize a communication channel the goal is to make the signal look like pure white noise. A signal might need to be encoded to further achieve that, and then decoded on the other end. If you do not have the encoder or the decoder then the signal between them will look like garbage... pure noise. Just like you can look at two people speaking a foreign language and see nothing but noises. Applying thermodynamics to this act of encoding and decoding, each require an amount of energy and will thus also produce another copy of something that looks like pure noise. Generally we try to get rid of that noise with heat sinks. For example if you hit the delete key on your computer it takes a dissipation of energy to condemn the bits. The bits might dissipate and become mixed together so that they look like noise, but they are always still there. After being condemned they look like noise... pure garbage. That is because you and I do not have the decoder to see the bits after they are condemned. If we accidently condemn something like a piece of history then we can no longer see it with our eyes. While it is impossible that a decoder can physically exist, since thermodynamics requires the physical encoder and decoder to use energy, it is entirely possible that a non-physical decoder exists... a decoder that can see all of history. I have stated that the entropy is like a written book... until now I have not stated who or what can read that book. Until quantum mechanics, despite thermodynamics, it was assumed by scientists that everything could be measured. Shame on them.

If you like that slice then here is another. From control theory (and practice) I make use of feedback loops where energy is directed to perform something per a measured piece of information. A person utilizes control loops daily without even realizing it. But if you can not measure something then you can not actively control it. I take that and apply it to the entropy wherein nothing physical can decode the information in it. But if it could decode it then there would be a wealth of control available by it. That wealth is available to anyone who can decode it. The rest of control theory involves the use of energy in harmony with the acquired and decoded information. In other words though some of the book has been written, knowing the history and current state allows the use of energy to write the next page. I have witnessed that the one who can apparently decode the entropy that no man can see, can also write the next page despite what any man would like to see.

How I have seen the control is unusual... energy from different directions get applied to make an event happen as if it were all working together on its own. Kind of like several birds that for no apparent reason fly to do things in a coordinated fashion to somehow make an event happen that they otherwise would not even have any interest in doing. There is no hallucination in the event, yet the synchronicity is outside the realm of physical communication and coordination. If I know from science that it is physically impossible, then I know that something metaphysical is responsible. That something, or more appropriately someone, can be interacted with via the energy and matter. The energy and matter obeys the laws, but is directed by something that is outside of them. But that is far more than what I originally stated... I merely indicate, with reason, that anything physical that must use energy is being recorded.
 
Re: 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 105820974944592307816406286208

If PI were infinite then the value would be greater than 4.
As I get it it is not Pi in itself that is special but its relationship to other whole numbers and the way it keeps cropping up in nature. If, using your argument, you dismiss infinity in Pi because it is not a whole number and call the division of a whole nothing it makes no sense. Because as can be clearly demonstrated in the 1 and 1/4 trillion places it has been calculated to there is a lot of something there. Again as I understand it most numbers like this begin to develop patterns that become predictable, Pi steadfastly refuses to yield any pattern. It goes on infinitely generating apparently random digits.

If you were a scientist or engineer you would know that nobody proves anything without doing the experiment themselves.
And having it independently repeated ;)

Oh sorry I hope I did not assume it. Perish the thought. I wasn't the one discussing unseen dimensions but I guess they are back off the table because you believe only in what you can see.
Who says I dont believe in them ;)

There you go again describing something that nobody has ever seen. Black hole thermodynamics and event horizon theories come from applying locally observed laws. Laws of science or laws of God... either way if I am wrong then produce the person who has seen and thus proved that Hawking radiation is counter to the observed laws of thermodynamics.
Nobody had ever seen an atomic explosion when Einstein published. Many called the mere concept of a black hole ridiculous, yet they have been proven to be everywhere. Unfortunately as I write I have attempted to retrieve a piece from the current issue of New Scientist but the page keeps timing out. In it one scientist claims to have found evidence that Hawkins radiation is a fact and proposed a method to detect it directly. (something I think that would add weight to my idea that smbh's are cosmic string 'ends' or 'beginnings'. i.e. the particles would not just 'pop' into existence as Hawkins predicts but be forced into observable dimensions by the pressures created by the superstring.)

Thank you, I'll give you a slice of cyber-pi: Thermodynamics is not just a theory. It is easily observed. What I state about entropy is more complex than just thermodynamics. In communication and information theory (and practice) if I wish to maximize a communication channel the goal is to make the signal look like pure white noise. A signal might need to be encoded to further achieve that, and then decoded on the other end. If you do not have the encoder or the decoder then the signal between them will look like garbage... pure noise. Just like you can look at two people speaking a foreign language and see nothing but noises. Applying thermodynamics to this act of encoding and decoding, each require an amount of energy and will thus also produce another copy of something that looks like pure noise. Generally we try to get rid of that noise with heat sinks. For example if you hit the delete key on your computer it takes a dissipation of energy to condemn the bits. The bits might dissipate and become mixed together so that they look like noise, but they are always still there. After being condemned they look like noise... pure garbage. That is because you and I do not have the decoder to see the bits after they are condemned. If we accidently condemn something like a piece of history then we can no longer see it with our eyes. While it is impossible that a decoder can physically exist, since thermodynamics requires the physical encoder and decoder to use energy, it is entirely possible that a non-physical decoder exists... a decoder that can see all of history. I have stated that the entropy is like a written book... until now I have not stated who or what can read that book. Until quantum mechanics, despite thermodynamics, it was assumed by scientists that everything could be measured. Shame on them.

If you like that slice then here is another. From control theory (and practice) I make use of feedback loops where energy is directed to perform something per a measured piece of information. A person utilizes control loops daily without even realizing it. But if you can not measure something then you can not actively control it. I take that and apply it to the entropy wherein nothing physical can decode the information in it. But if it could decode it then there would be a wealth of control available by it. That wealth is available to anyone who can decode it. The rest of control theory involves the use of energy in harmony with the acquired and decoded information. In other words though some of the book has been written, knowing the history and current state allows the use of energy to write the next page. I have witnessed that the one who can apparently decode the entropy that no man can see, can also write the next page despite what any man would like to see.

How I have seen the control is unusual... energy from different directions get applied to make an event happen as if it were all working together on its own. Kind of like several birds that for no apparent reason fly to do things in a coordinated fashion to somehow make an event happen that they otherwise would not even have any interest in doing. There is no hallucination in the event, yet the synchronicity is outside the realm of physical communication and coordination. If I know from science that it is physically impossible, then I know that something metaphysical is responsible. That something, or more appropriately someone, can be interacted with via the energy and matter. The energy and matter obeys the laws, but is directed by something that is outside of them. But that is far more than what I originally stated... I merely indicate, with reason, that anything physical that must use energy is being recorded.

You are so much more interesting when you are not telling people they are wrong!!
The trouble with recording everything is filing, classification and retrieval. Recording everything creates as many problems as it solves. And even if what is recorded is there the context, inspiration and purpose may not be apparent. None the less I like your Pi.

Tao
 
Re: 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 105820974944592307816406286208

As I get it it is not Pi in itself that is special but its relationship to other whole numbers and the way it keeps cropping up in nature. If, using your argument, you dismiss infinity in Pi because it is not a whole number and call the division of a whole nothing it makes no sense. Because as can be clearly demonstrated in the 1 and 1/4 trillion places it has been calculated to there is a lot of something there. Again as I understand it most numbers like this begin to develop patterns that become predictable, Pi steadfastly refuses to yield any pattern. It goes on infinitely generating apparently random digits.
There are more transcedental and irrational numbers than there are rational. e is another famous one. The golden ratio yet another.

Tao_Equus said:
Who says I dont believe in them ;)

Nobody had ever seen an atomic explosion when Einstein published.
You have claimed incorrectly that nobody has seen God. Yet you can not prove that even an atomic explosion exists... can you. Neither have you proved that unseen dimensions exists... have you. You have taken it on faith in people that an atomic explosion even exists. You say that evidence of atomic explosions exists in the world, but you can not prove to me that an atomic explosion exists. The next step would be to do the experiment and witness it for yourself. Similarly it was with God for me, though God is more like a person than a deterministic machine.

Tao_Equus said:
You are so much more interesting when you are not telling people they are wrong!!
That is a problem for you. I find it more interesting when I am wrong, and the person who tells me I am wrong far more interesting. I noticed that my statements about the water cycle with global warming had a similar result with you.

Tao_Equus said:
The trouble with recording everything is filing, classification and retrieval. Recording everything creates as many problems as it solves.
Physically, yes... connectivity is required and it takes energy to sort, to file, and to retrieve. Non-physically... not a problem.
 
Re: 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 105820974944592307816406286208

Ty Cyber,
You have claimed incorrectly that nobody has seen God. Yet you can not prove that even an atomic explosion exists... can you. Neither have you proved that unseen dimensions exists... have you. You have taken it on faith in people that an atomic explosion even exists. You say that evidence of atomic explosions exists in the world, but you can not prove to me that an atomic explosion exists. The next step would be to do the experiment and witness it for yourself. Similarly it was with God for me, though God is more like a person than a deterministic machine.
I do not think I have ever claimed that nobody has seen God, only that they cannot prove that they have. Unseen dimensions, likewise, have no proof, but again I have only ever played with the concept and never stated them incontrovertible fact. As for atomic explosions, well now you are just being silly. And if you know of an experiment that would prove there is a God then please share that information.

That is a problem for you. I find it more interesting when I am wrong, and the person who tells me I am wrong far more interesting. I noticed that my statements about the water cycle with global warming had a similar result with you.
Why would it be a "problem" for me? I too find it most stimulating when I am wrong, sometimes it takes a while to realise it tho. As for water vapour and climate change i am not sure I understand, I'l need to dig out the thread, but as I recall you dismissed the influence of other catalysts and proposed drowning the poor. Sorry but I will never call you sage for that.

Tao
 
Re: 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 105820974944592307816406286208

I do not think I have ever claimed that nobody has seen God, only that they cannot prove that they have.
I noticed several times you have stepped into stating what 'we' have seen, what 'we' can prove, and what evidence 'we' have. Your words on another thread were:
There is not one single shred of real evidence been provided during the entire span of human history that there is a God.
That appears to speak even for the dead and what the dead have allegedly seen. I see a mistake regardless of the subject.

And if you know of an experiment that would prove there is a God then please share that information.
Seek and you will discover. Pray to the power that you do not see and do not realize you already know, and ask for guidance... with both general and specific, for personal and for others. Every day is a day in school. Realize there are virtues that a person lacks. Seek change, seek improvement, and do good. Seek with honesty of what is good and test whether it is in your own actions and state of mind. Find the person or place where you know the individual is in a pit that you already recognize, who seeks something better, and give. Give so that you are given. Upon being personally given you have received more than proof. It is repeatable, verifiable, and awesome.

I personally learn from the gospels (MMLJ, Thomas), Qu'ran... and I study some of the OT. Words and thoughts can come to rememberance at opportune times. Any rememberance or placement of thoughts is not necessarily your own action. God is inside and outside... the voice of God can be on the lips of anyone, and yet with control of events outside of any man.

Why would it be a "problem" for me?
Because it blinds. Pride finds the disagreement and opposing questions uninteresting... disagreeable. Find the good in disagreement as well as in the agreement.
 
Back
Top