# Pi ----

Why do people search for the end of pi if it is an everlasting sequeunce of numbers that has no pattern?

They don’t. They just look for more and more digits in an infinite sequence.

It has become the traditional way to demonstrate just how powerful their newest computer toy is.

“Look, I can calculate pi to seven million decimal places!”

Big whoop.

How did you arrive at the conclusion that the sequence has no pattern?

If you’re an optimist, you haven’t been paying attention.

Cecil tackled that one already…
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_357.html

I won’t bother to expound.

A pattern repeats itself. If pi repeated itself, it would be rational. It is known not to be rational.

(This is a vast oversimplification, of course, but the real answer is very long and complex and if you knew enough math to follow it, you wouldn’t have asked the question.)

John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams

I’m not claiming that pi is rational, but you have to keep in mind that there might be a pattern that repeats every 8 billion digits, for all we know. I doubt it, though.

“A pattern repeats itself. If pi repeated itself, it would be rational. It is known not to be rational.”

John, could that be reworded to “It is not known to be rational?”

-andros-

There’s always a bigger fish.

Calculating pi is a popular and effective way to calibrate supercomputers. Set the new kid on the block next to a couple of old ones, chug away for a day or two and a few billion digits, and see if they all agree.

If not, well, try replacing the one that uses the Pentium.

John W. Kennedy was right, pi is known not to be rational. In other words, it is known that it never repeats, no matter how far out you take it.

John W. Kennedy wrote:

Not necessarily!

Consider the following infinitely-long decimal:

<BLOCKQUOTE>0.1010010001000010000010000001…</BLOCKQUOTE>

It has a definite pattern to it (one 0, 1, two 0s, 1, three 0s, 1, four 0s, 1, etc.) – but it never ever repeats and is, in fact, an irrational number.

Pi could, in theory, have a regularity to it like this, which is non-repeating.

I’m not flying fast, just orbiting low.

Tracer, you are right.

Pi is both transcendental and irrational, but the fact that it is non-terminating does not prevent it from having a pattern imbedded in it.

That’s what they’re looking for.

Why?

Who knows? Those whacky mathematicians!

If you’re an optimist, you haven’t been paying attention.

Yeah, that’s right, it could still have a pattern. Some people think it’s a “normal” number, but it’s not known. That would mean it has every possible finite string of numbers in its expansion. So if you used numbers to code the alphabet, pi would contain all the works of Shakespeare, this thread, and anything else that could ever be written. But I digress…

Here (if anyone is interested) is a link showing a proof that pi is irrational. (Just don’t ask me to explain it. I’m still trying to figure it out myself.)

Carpe hoc!

Is bar .9 rational? It is an easy concept but I can not come up with a fraction to express it.

There is no safety for honest men but by believing all possible evil of evil men.

–Edmund Burke

Yup, bar .9 is rational.

Pardon me while I calculate:

x = bar .9

10x = bar 9.9

10x - x = 9x = 9

x = 1, so bar .9 = 1

Cabbage, it’s guys like you that give algebra a bad name.
Which is a good thing, because it sucks.

The only time I use it is to calculate the Inverse Phase Transitionals of tri-polar N-dimensionals in Microsoft Hearts.

Still get nailed with the Queen, though.

If you’re an optimist, you haven’t been paying attention.

I’ve got to remember that comeback when somebody accuses me of being irrational:

Speaking of patterns in irrational numbers, y’all know about e, right? Repeats itself every four digits, but changes the pattern every eight. And thoroughly irrational. Funk-ay.

no, what is e? i.e. what does it represent?