๐งต Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 21:09:30 UTC No. 16290096
Which one is in the right?
Cult of Passion at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 21:10:31 UTC No. 16290097
>>16290096
Pi=1
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 21:15:20 UTC No. 16290101
>>16290096
whats the formula behind chaotic good?
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 21:23:07 UTC No. 16290107
>>16290101
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buf
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 00:19:09 UTC No. 16290288
[math]3 \frac{10}{71} < \pi < 3 \frac{1}{7}[/math]
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 05:34:38 UTC No. 16290457
3 + sqrt(2)/10
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 05:37:58 UTC No. 16290461
>>16290096
pi=pi
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 05:39:36 UTC No. 16290462
>>16290461
[citation needed]
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 09:08:32 UTC No. 16290651
>>16290114
BTFO how?
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 09:09:07 UTC No. 16290653
>>16290462
It was revealed to me in a dream.
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 09:26:45 UTC No. 16290663
>>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".
Cult of Passion at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 09:39:31 UTC No. 16290668
>>16290096
Can 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.
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 11:03:36 UTC No. 16290717
>>16290096
pi=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.
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 11:48:38 UTC No. 16290746
>>16290096
Neutral good is the kino for me.
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 11:51:16 UTC No. 16290749
>>16290461
[math]\pi=\frac{\tau}{2}[/math]
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 12:42:29 UTC No. 16290790
>>16290717
If this is true, how come length^2 is an area?
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 17:28:50 UTC No. 16291024
>>16290647
Throwing sticks is just harder Monte Carlo integration
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 00:45:19 UTC No. 16291679
>>16290096
All 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.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 00:57:10 UTC No. 16291692
>>16290651
Defining numbers by the "storage capacity of the universe" is far less discrete than truncating a partial sum.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 00:58:18 UTC No. 16291694
>>16291679
>so called "real numbers" are just approximation algorithms
Not true. Almost all of them aren't.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 01:07:38 UTC No. 16291698
>>16291694
Post one.
>I can't it was just schizo babble and misunderstanding probability.
Or shut up.
non-computable numbers aren't numbers at all.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 01:12:22 UTC No. 16291700
>>16290096
True neutral should be ฯ = ฯ
Chaotic evil should be something actually chaotic. Maybe ฯ = 0 or ฯ = -e
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 01:15:05 UTC No. 16291704
>>16291694
Do you think intuitionists haven't defined the real numbers yet? They did it before you were born.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 02:29:27 UTC No. 16291736
>>16291698
>non-computable numbers
>approximation algorithms
Opinion discarded.
>>16291704
How does your question follow?
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 06:51:30 UTC No. 16291853
>>16290096
whichever one is rational.
>>16290114
still rational lmao
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 11:22:37 UTC No. 16291986
>>16291700
no.
this:
ฯ = ln(-1)/i
Cult of Passion at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 11:26:25 UTC No. 16291987
>>16291700
>True neutral should be ฯ = ฯ
Or 1...yours isnt neutral, its just self referential. "Side length 1" is about as Neutral as I can think of, but ฯ = 5 needs explaination.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 12:54:57 UTC No. 16292060
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?
Cult of Passion at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 13:10:44 UTC No. 16292076
>>16292060
>I'm a biologist
Welcome to Oragnic Mathematics.
Class dismissed.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 13:50:26 UTC No. 16292121
>>16292060
3.14 is already more than 99.9 % accurate. I'm pretty sure you can get meaningful results with slightly lower accuracy too.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 14:45:23 UTC No. 16292175
>>16292060
You would be surprised at the number of situations where you can set [math]\pi = 3[/math] and get away with it
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 02:14:57 UTC No. 16292968
>>16291694
all of them are.
post one that isnt.
B00T at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 02:20:01 UTC No. 16292974
>>16292968
Schizobabble
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 02:21:37 UTC No. 16292975
>>16291853
>still rational lmao
might wanna take another look at that denominator
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 02:47:18 UTC No. 16293003
>>16290647
Do the stick throwers account for air resistance
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 08:07:07 UTC No. 16293188
>>16292060
No.
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.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:24:36 UTC No. 16293545
>>16292974
Hail Barkon. King of /sci/
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 19:21:59 UTC No. 16293795
>>16290096
The Holy Bible defines Pi to be 3, so that is the Right one.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 20:43:52 UTC No. 16293900
>>16293188
Thank you for the explanation. I feel like you crystalized the concept pretty well.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 20:48:15 UTC No. 16293910
>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 up
Was I in the wrong here?
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 20:59:30 UTC No. 16293926
>>16293910
>Instructor can't comprehend the nuance of your question
>Entire class snickers
This is why choice of university matters. I bet you go to a bottom tier state school
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 21:02:05 UTC No. 16293931
>>16293926
I go to uc Berkeley
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 23:56:52 UTC No. 16294115
>>16292975
sure.
its rational as well.
Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 01:57:07 UTC No. 16294231
>>16290096
>no atan(1)*4
that's like the most common approximation that i learned in high school