Which one is in the right?
>>16290096Pi=1
>>16290096whats the formula behind chaotic good?
>>16290101https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffon%27s_needle_problem
Wildbergerites BTFOhttps://www.storagereview.com/news/storagereview-lab-breaks-pi-calculation-world-record-with-over-202-trillion-digits
[math]3 \frac{10}{71} < \pi < 3 \frac{1}{7}[/math]
3 + sqrt(2)/10
>>16290096pi=pi
>>16290461[citation needed]
>>16290114BTFO how?
>>16290462It was revealed to me in a dream.
>>16290096"Lawful good" would obviously be a convergent of a continued fraction, because those are the "morally correct" approach to rational approximation of irrational numbers. No idea why the creator thinks they are "evil".
>>16290096Can I see the work for Pi=5? 4 I understand, but 1 is also not there and I can show my work, thus if you cannot, change Chaotic Evil to mine.
>>16290096pi=sqrt(g) is true because the conversion between a meter and a second is based on pendulum physics.no matter what length of a stick you use to make a pendulum from, if you define a second based on how long it takes that stick to swing back and forth, then dropping a rock will show that the rock falls exactly pi^2 stick-lengths in the time it takes that stick to swing back and forth.
>>16290096Neutral good is the kino for me.
>>16290461[math]\pi=\frac{\tau}{2}[/math]
>>16290717If this is true, how come length^2 is an area?
>>16290647Throwing sticks is just harder Monte Carlo integration
>>16290096All and none. The so called "real numbers" are just approximation algorithms. If you want to be pedantic then LG and CG are the best ones, as they actually imply an algorithm.
>>16290651Defining numbers by the "storage capacity of the universe" is far less discrete than truncating a partial sum.
>>16291679>so called "real numbers" are just approximation algorithmsNot true. Almost all of them aren't.
>>16291694Post one. >I can't it was just schizo babble and misunderstanding probability. Or shut up.non-computable numbers aren't numbers at all.
>>16290096True neutral should be π = πChaotic evil should be something actually chaotic. Maybe π = 0 or π = -e
>>16291694Do you think intuitionists haven't defined the real numbers yet? They did it before you were born.
>>16291698>non-computable numbers>approximation algorithmsOpinion discarded.>>16291704How does your question follow?
>>16290096whichever one is rational.>>16290114still rational lmao
>>16291700no. this:π = ln(-1)/i
>>16291700>True neutral should be π = πOr 1...yours isnt neutral, its just self referential. "Side length 1" is about as Neutral as I can think of, but π = 5 needs explaination.
I'm a biologist who scraped through statistics but wouldn't using anything besides 3.14 or something exactly equivalent result in an answer so far removed it would be totally meaningless?
>>16292060>I'm a biologistWelcome to Oragnic Mathematics.Class dismissed.
>>162920603.14 is already more than 99.9 % accurate. I'm pretty sure you can get meaningful results with slightly lower accuracy too.
>>16292060You would be surprised at the number of situations where you can set [math]\pi = 3[/math] and get away with it
>>16291694all of them are.post one that isnt.
>>16292968Schizobabble
>>16291853>still rational lmaomight wanna take another look at that denominator
>>16290647Do the stick throwers account for air resistance
>>16292060No.For example suppose you have a differential equation where the eigenvalues are given by roots of the characteristic polynomial [math]x^2-\pi+c=0[/math]where [math]c[/math] is your approximation to [math]\pi[/math]. If this corresponded to some physical system, it now matters a lot whether you overestimate it, underestimate it, or take an exact value.For example you could have a differential equation where these eigenvalues represent wavenumbers corresponding to modes of propagation of some wave in a medium, and depending on whether the root of that equation is real, imaginary, or has both real and imaginary parts, you're describing very different physical behaviour, so this matters a lot. In situations like this numerically approximating the system loses a significant amount of insight and we want to have an exact solution so we know qualitatively what's going on.
>>16292974Hail Barkon. King of /sci/
>>16290096The Holy Bible defines Pi to be 3, so that is the Right one.
>>16293188Thank you for the explanation. I feel like you crystalized the concept pretty well.
>Take numerical analysis class>First assignment >Calculate [irrational number] to k digits>Actual numerical answer expected>Answer is dependent on pi>Go over assignment in class>Ask instructor how many digits to approximate pi for the calculation >He's dumbfounded by the question >What do you mean?>The calculation depends on pi. How well does pi need to be approximated so that the answer is correct?>Pi is pi. Just use pi like in the formula>Pi is irrational and approximated by my calculator. Does that mean I can approximate with 3 and still get the correct answer? (I checked for myself and it didn't)>No because pi is not 3. Use the pi in your calculator because that is pi>I'm completely dumbfounded and the class is starting to snicker at me, so I shut upWas I in the wrong here?
>>16293910>Instructor can't comprehend the nuance of your question >Entire class snickersThis is why choice of university matters. I bet you go to a bottom tier state school
>>16293926I go to uc Berkeley
>>16292975sure.its rational as well.
>>16290096>no atan(1)*4 that's like the most common approximation that i learned in high school
