# The pi lie (or quantum uncertainty) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 12, 2002, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pi-lie-or-quantum-uncertainty/142323 "2002-12-12T20:47:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pi-lie-or-quantum-uncertainty/142323/81 "2002-12-13T03:35:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Justhink \* > I look at the output of talking about God, as the same as the output of pi. There is no ‘right’ way to find for pi, and there always seem to be more or less efficient ways to calculate it and calculate it further and further – to this degree, the process itself is the variable!! Okay, let’s get our facts straight here: (1) There are plenty of ‘right’ ways to find pi. All the different ways are ‘right’. They may be less efficient in terms of the amount of computation necessary to obtain pi to a given precision. But, that doesn’t make one wrong and the other right. [In fact, I think some of the coolest are the probabilistic ones like throwing a bunch of toothpicks down randomly that are the same length as the distance between the wooden slats (in a hardwood floor, for example) and counting the fraction that cross the boundary between two slats. It turns out to be 1/pi (or, 2/pi, or something like that). Now, this is a ridiculously bad way to calculate pi accurately…but still way-cool in my opinion…I think in a similar sense that a beautiful piece of music or a beautiful mountain is way-cool.] (2) I don’t see the analogy between God and pi at all. I mean when I challenge the notion of God, I am challenging its usefulness in explaining the world. I do not challenge the idea that the Biblical story of creation, or the Greek myths, or The Lord of the Rings make great literature. In a similar way, the mathematical structure that we have created makes a very nice logical system that is fun to explore. Many pure mathematicians wouldn’t really give much of a care whether math has any use in the real world. But, as a super-extra-special bonus, it also turns out to be great in describing the physical world…i.e, mathematics turns out to be the most convenient and powerful language to express the physics (and chemistry…) in the world around us. That is also way-cool, IMHO! (3) Although most people learn about pi in terms of the circle, it is ubiquitous in mathematics and in physics. I almost never go around calculating the circumference of a circle in relation to its diameter, yet as a physicist I use pi very regularly. It turns out that the concept of pi is extremely useful in physics. Now, you could argue that the physics would still work to the precision it could be measured, if we replaced pi by its first twenty digits and, while that is true in a numerical sense, it turns out that it would make lots of theoretical explanations a hell of a lot messier! Having the concept of pi is indeed extremely handy…take my word for it. ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pi-lie-or-quantum-uncertainty/142323/82 "2002-12-13T03:38:50Z")
I feel compelled to continue. Strange. From the OP: \*\*For any given circle drawn, the number of circumfrances solvable within the line used to represent that circle are infinite. \*\* However, as the number of circumfrences approaches infinity, the difference between each one and the next becomes infinitely small. For practical purposes (I know, not really your thing) the number of circumfrences that are indistinguishable from one another is irrelevant. From the OP: \*\*It’s like standing on a pile of infinitely stacked needles and only selecting one needle at a time to prove that every needle in the stack is exactly the same, when we already know that the stack is infinite! \*\* No, it’s like standing on a pile of infinitely stacked needles that become smaller in ever shrinking increments as you approach the top, and selecting the last needle for which you detect a change in size to prove that at some point the change in size becomes indetectable, and therefore irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![BioHazard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3bc359/32.png) [@BioHazard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BioHazard)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pi-lie-or-quantum-uncertainty/142323/83 "2002-12-13T03:51:02Z")
Reading Justhink’s (and a couple other dopers posts) Somehow seems to fill my head with ideas – only I don’t exactly know what they are! However, something does something: that’s clear, at any rate – ---
**Author:** ![Justhink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/edb3f5/32.png) [@Justhink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justhink)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pi-lie-or-quantum-uncertainty/142323/84 "2002-12-13T03:57:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MEBuckner \* > \*\ ***Moderator’s Note:** The point has already been made, but **Justhink** , please be more careful about [throwing around words like “troll”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=2670336#post2670336). \*\* Sincere apologies. I was using the word to play off how I was attaching the idea to God, and that this VERY OBVIOUS point was bound to emerge and bring the OP into an actual debate. I realized that in many threads of a similar slant, a person might actually pass by in calling a respondant a troll and not get called on it, even though they provided the only means with which to debate the OP. I was aknowledging this and appreciating that it was a necessecary and appreciated step to move the discussion forward. In another time =), someone might consider that reply a strawman! _one can only dream_ Having stated that, I still believe I’m far from having made my point in considering them with the perspectives offered here, so I suppose the entire line was pointless to that degree. I thought it was clever and actually didn’t think Lib would mind. Aparently I was wrong! The line between troll and not troll is itself an interesting debate… I haven’t actually thought of a type of posting that I’d consider trolling. Maybe spam? _shrug_ I think I was teasing what others would consider a troll, simply for the purpose of maintaining control of information in the forum or thread. (try going to a hackers board and ask for source code and race condition exploits and see how long it takes to be called a troll - some boards themselves are ‘trolls’, not that I feel that way here; but… it’s kinda relative in this sense). Anyhow, apologies again Libertarian. -Justhink ---
**Author:** ![Justhink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/edb3f5/32.png) [@Justhink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justhink)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pi-lie-or-quantum-uncertainty/142323/85 "2002-12-13T04:17:26Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t see the analogy between God and pi at all. I mean when I challenge the notion of God, I am challenging its usefulness in explaining the world. And because the idea was determined to be a big vacuum for logical inconsistency, it is not taught in schools. Children are not de-merited in our public institutions for not showing evidence of their ability to corelate the idea of God with reality. I don’t mind people talking about God in schools myself, as it would stimulate conversation along these lines… but to grade people on the intricacies that only a completely brainwashed person would be able to know or care to know is freightening. God creates suffering because: a.) God is evil b.) God works in mysterious ways c.) God anwers to nobody d.) You are evil _chuckle_ And you thought _your_ finals were though! As far as your point regarding the usefulness of pi in physics is concerned _chuckle_, maybe that’s because it’s being used as a God of the gaps! Indespensible would you say? -Justhink ---
**Author:** ![Justhink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/edb3f5/32.png) [@Justhink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justhink)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pi-lie-or-quantum-uncertainty/142323/86 "2002-12-13T04:21:26Z")
Oh yeah… considering pi to be the ratio of circumfrance and diameter is not how it was found… or to this day is still even found! There is no set way of even finding pi… the whole concept just seems like a god of the gaps, except the system is slightly more physical then the actual God system (not to discount the proof: “How could you not look at the world and say God doesn’t exist!?” =) -Justhink ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pi-lie-or-quantum-uncertainty/142323/87 "2002-12-13T04:30:19Z")
There are plenty of set ways of finding pi… depending on what you need it for. There is an equation that will give you the _n_th hexadecimal digit (unit? Uh…), there are slowly converging series, there are rapidly converging series… heck, as we speak some mathematician might be discovering an equation that will give you the _n_th decimal of pi. (I’m not holding my breath) ---
**Author:** ![Justhink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/edb3f5/32.png) [@Justhink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justhink)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pi-lie-or-quantum-uncertainty/142323/88 "2002-12-13T04:30:39Z")
> [@](#): > > However, as the number of circumfrences approaches infinity, the difference between each one and the next becomes infinitely small. For practical purposes (I know, not really your thing) the number of circumfrences that are indistinguishable from one another is irrelevant. That’s a sensory acuity problem, not a logical problem. We just need better microscopes. I thought the basis of logic was quasi-attempting-to-prove-permanence-as-a-valid-means-of-interpreting-reality. We don’t simply discard what we understand to be logically correct simply because our microscope can’t go down another x1000. We don’t pretend that there is only a tape recorder when your freind walks into another room whistling, and then reverts back to your friend when you walk into the room. More on this point and actually addressing this additional reply of yours: > [@](#): > > No, it’s like standing on a pile of infinitely stacked needles that become smaller in ever shrinking increments as you approach the top, and selecting the last needle for which you detect a change in size to prove that at some point the change in size becomes indetectable, and therefore irrelevant. Your reductionism fails! The line does not need to shift width in order to be in that infinite set… it just needs to be slightly smaller than the original line. In an infinite set, your convergence reduction is not necessary in order to still satisfy the requirements of ‘infinite number of circumfrances’. -Justhink ---
**Author:** ![Justhink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/edb3f5/32.png) [@Justhink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justhink)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pi-lie-or-quantum-uncertainty/142323/89 "2002-12-13T04:48:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > \*\*There are plenty of set ways of finding pi… depending on what you need it for. There is an equation that will give you the _n_th hexadecimal digit (unit? Uh…), there are slowly converging series, there are rapidly converging series… heck, as we speak some mathematician might be discovering an equation that will give you the _n_th decimal of pi. (I’m not holding my breath) \*\* To me, this correlates as a process to arrive at God, to which many of these are ‘known’. To define pi as the ratio of diameter and circumfrance has no more actual evidence than the existence of God. With God, it’s basically “we think, so there must be a master thinker, since masters exist” I still don’t see how one can claim with a straight face that pi actually allowed them to build Chartres or Norte Dame. The evidence to me is as clear as the evidence for claiming god helped you do it. “It’s a ratio, but we can’t use a ratio to find it, but it’s definately a ratio.” “It’s infinite, but can’t be veiwed as such, but it’s infinite.” I think my general perception has been noted here now. I still haven’t caught an idea with exceptional epiphany which causes me to split the teaching of pi in school as strongly correlating with the teaching of God in school; and that either both should be ‘taught’ or neither should be taught. -Justhink ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pi-lie-or-quantum-uncertainty/142323/90 "2002-12-13T04:52:28Z")
It _correlates_? You mean, “I have made this analogy, and in some cases it seems appropriate, but I cannot support a one-to-one relationship.” ---
**Author:** ![Azael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a8b319/32.png) [@Azael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Azael)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pi-lie-or-quantum-uncertainty/142323/91 "2002-12-13T05:06:49Z")
Justhink Is it so hard to imagine how something can be divided into (infinty) parts that are (1/infinity) in size? ---
**Author:** ![Azael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a8b319/32.png) [@Azael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Azael)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pi-lie-or-quantum-uncertainty/142323/92 "2002-12-13T05:08:29Z")
(infinity/infinity) = 1 ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pi-lie-or-quantum-uncertainty/142323/93 "2002-12-13T05:10:02Z")
Sloppy. ---
**Author:** ![Azael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a8b319/32.png) [@Azael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Azael)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pi-lie-or-quantum-uncertainty/142323/94 "2002-12-13T05:10:55Z")
how so? ---
**Author:** ![Justhink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/edb3f5/32.png) [@Justhink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justhink)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pi-lie-or-quantum-uncertainty/142323/95 "2002-12-13T05:18:07Z")
> [@](#): > > It correlates? You mean, “I have made this analogy, and in some cases it seems appropriate, but I cannot support a one-to-one relationship.” That’s because I’m neurotic about the ‘axiom of difference’ =) If they were exactly the same, I would disprove the purpose of writing the OP, as reality would collapse. To the degree that pi does not deal with sentient structures, it cannot map precisely. Other then that, I would say that these do form a fit in every other respect. -Justhink ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pi-lie-or-quantum-uncertainty/142323/96 "2002-12-13T05:20:34Z")
Infinity over infinity can be all sorts of numbers. I’ve encountered it in using limits, mostly. I would imagine it could be any number, including infinity. A specific example is the limit as x goes to +infinity of [sup]ln(2+e[sup]x[/sup])[/sup]/[sub]3x[/sub] which equals 1/3. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pi-lie-or-quantum-uncertainty/142323/97 "2002-12-13T05:21:56Z")
I should add, the numerator and the denominator both evaluate to +infinity, yielding (infinity/infinity)=1/3. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pi-lie-or-quantum-uncertainty/142323/98 "2002-12-13T05:27:03Z")
**Justhink** , while I—unashamedly—appreciate your posts, I must admit a certain, shall we say, trend exists, which is making a claim that is very important to you, but, should you actually prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, would result in 1. Reality collapsing; or, 2. Mass suicide. I find this troubling for personal, philosophical, and SDMB-based reasons (in no particular order). > [@](#): > > To the degree that pi does not deal with sentient structures, it cannot map precisely. But, the thing is, it _does_ map precisely. It is only writing the base _n_ expansion of the number that stalls out in impossibility. ---
**Author:** ![Justhink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/edb3f5/32.png) [@Justhink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justhink)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pi-lie-or-quantum-uncertainty/142323/99 "2002-12-13T05:27:14Z")
Wouldn’t infinity always need to be a process though unless a non-infinity was directly operated upon it… effectively rendering it an (any operator) identity? -Justhink ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pi-lie-or-quantum-uncertainty/142323/100 "2002-12-13T05:29:24Z")
You’ll need to rephrase that, I think. But, if I understand correctly, yes, IMNSHO, infinity is always handled through processes. It is not a concept we have, nor an inference from something we perceive. I don’t know what you are on about the identity thing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pi-lie-or-quantum-uncertainty/142323.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pi-lie-or-quantum-uncertainty/142323.md?page=6)