What do you think about this formula for pi? It has e three times in it and even square root of e. Bunch of e's multiplied by some weird ass product is a number that approaches pi.How do you get this formula?
>>16847432>What do you think about this formula for pi?It is not. It is a close approximation though.
>>16847465It is once you replace the 10^8 with infinity.
>>16847523Maybe open with that next time.
>>16847432>How do you get this formula?Divide pi by the square root of e cubed, and the factor the result into infinitely many factors.You can factor, no?
Must be the most inefficient formula ever. One hundred million terms gives you only eight digits of pi. I wonder how much closer it would be to pi if it was 10^8+1 terms, a puny tiny amount.
>>16847432If your formula for calculating an irrational number requires you to know perfectly the value of a different irrational number, it kinda fails as a formula.
>>16847712>muh magical sine boxNo embedded pi in there. No sir.
>>16847523not possible libtard.
>>16847432"Pure" number theory attracts the most braindead drooling retards like Ramanujan.
>>16847432I like it, I guess
>>16847701How about now
>>16847432>It has e three times in itIf you use three numbers derived from pi you can approximate pi! wow
One million terms of the series only gets you the first six digits of pi. The series with 1,000,001 terms gets you closer to pi by about 0.00000000000157. That would be like saying that if pi was the circumference of earth, with one million terms you would be 20 meters away from reaching pi and adding one more term to the series would move you closer by about 1/50 of a millimeter or the thickness of a wool fiber.
>>16847432Chudnovsky's formula will get you 8 correct digits and more in just 1 term compared to that formula. You'll have to buy them lunch.
>>16850061So it's just a hundred million times better formula
>>16848908that's interesting
>>16850611Yes
>>16848725Saved. There is a calming reassurance in this one.>>16850061The reciprocal of pi always looked wrong. Why does one ever need a pi-th of a cup of steal-cut oatmeal?
>>16850061A third of a cup, sure. But there's nothing wrong with asking for a tiny bit less.
