Min comment interval: 14 seconds
Remaining character count: 4000
Remaining character count: 4000
Spoiler Image
Shortcuts: "C" opens comments. "R" refreshes comments.
Record voice message?
Scroll to your comment?
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#1

furdabip
Reply +47 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [] Maybe Pi is a completely rational number, but just seems irrational when using base10 arabic numerals?
#75 to #66

anonmynous
Reply 1 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [] no an irrational number is one that cannot be expressed by a fraction of 2 integers. It has nothing to do with how you happen to write the integers whether it be 45 or 0x2D or 101101 they are all the same number. There are some numbers like one third 0.3333 that are infinite in length in base 10 but not in base 3 where one third is just 0.1 but either way 1/3 is not an irrational number because it can be expressed as the fraction of 2 integers
#77 to #75

tabarzins
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [] It's not only math that comes into play here. I know what an irrational number is, but all the definitions are meant for Arabic base10 number systems. I can easily make up my own number system and say the character "3" now stands for pi (base 10). If everyone used my number system "3" would not be irrational because it's just "3" and "1" would be pi/3 (base 10) and "2" is pi/2(base 10) and "4" is pi*2(base 10) and so on. So my number system would start out like this if it were base 10: pi/3, pi/2, pi, pi*2, pi*3... but it would look like 1,2,3,4... and those would all be rational.
The definition of a rational number heavily relies on the representation of the number, and if the standards of that representation is changed the term does not apply.
The definition of a rational number heavily relies on the representation of the number, and if the standards of that representation is changed the term does not apply.
#78 to #77

anonmynous
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [] I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. You can't redefine numbers like that. If you did you would be changing the definition of "1" which, by definition, gives the same number when multiplied by itself. one is a whole number. You can change bases but you can never change the definition of an integer.
#80 to #78

tabarzins
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [] I'm not changing the definition of 1 (base 10)
in my system there is a solid 1(base 10), it would just be represented a different way.
The actual character "1" is just a symbol. I can make it mean whatever I want. However most people decided it should mean 1(base 10) or 0001(base 2) and so on. It would be no different than saying what I have in the picture. If everyone agreed to use those symbols to mean those values(base 10) then it would be good. It's like making your own language and what you'd be saying is that grammar rules from a similar version still apply, which they wouldn't.
It's all based on conventions. We found whole numbers to be more useful when counting and we has 10 fingers so we used base 10 with whole numbers.
in my system there is a solid 1(base 10), it would just be represented a different way.
The actual character "1" is just a symbol. I can make it mean whatever I want. However most people decided it should mean 1(base 10) or 0001(base 2) and so on. It would be no different than saying what I have in the picture. If everyone agreed to use those symbols to mean those values(base 10) then it would be good. It's like making your own language and what you'd be saying is that grammar rules from a similar version still apply, which they wouldn't.
It's all based on conventions. We found whole numbers to be more useful when counting and we has 10 fingers so we used base 10 with whole numbers.
#74 to #1

anon id: ed06224c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [] It has been mathematically proven that pi is irrational in any representation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_%CF%80_is_irrational
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_%CF%80_is_irrational
#28 to #1

fuckyosixtyminutes
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [] Base counting system has nothing to do with it and it's been proven to be irrational.
#6 to #1

rublixcube
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [] Can someone better than me at math verify that this is a possibility?
#8 to #6

schnitzelwagen
Reply +35 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [] Yes. If you use Greek letters instead of the Arabic numerals, one Pi is one Pi.
#58 to #8

bjornkrage
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [] ************....
damn greeks, thinking they got it all figured out...
damn greeks, thinking they got it all figured out...
#17 to #6

emrakul
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [] It has nothing to do with the base of the number system (essentially the format for how numbers are written). If we assume that 1 is a pretty good fundamental unit for math, all numbers are just multiples of 1. There is no ratio of multiples of 1 that is equal to pi, regardless of if you are in base10, binary, whatever. It is just fundamentally separate.
#16 to #6

jackassalope
Reply 3 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [] No, it is irrational no matter what because 3.14... isn't actually high enough for base 10 to matter. More than that though, pi is a ratio between the diameter and circumference of a circle, all circles; it has no units nor is it unique to any counting system. Geometric ratios are about as fundamental as things get.
#21 to #16

fuckyosixtyminutes
Reply 2 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [] "isn't actually high enough for base 10 to matter"? You're a ******* idiot, please never talk about math again thanks.
#45 to #21

jackassalope
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [] Oh right, the decimals going the other way also follow it, silly me. Didn't really think about the first statement much because I knew the second half to be true. So here's another reason then: Quirky decimals caused by your choice of base always have repeating decimals. 1/7 for example just repeats .142857 over and over. An irrational number in one base is irrational in all bases.
P.S. here's another comment for you to thumb down Mr. internet tough guy.
P.S. here's another comment for you to thumb down Mr. internet tough guy.
#30 to #21

jackassalope
Reply 2 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [] Could be base 4, 5, 6....whatever and it wouldn't matter. The only way it would be rational is if you made the circumference of a circle a unit, and then the diameter would be irrational, in order to keep the ratio the same.
#32 to #30

fuckyosixtyminutes
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [] "It" would not be rational even in that case, if by "it" you mean the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, which is what pi is and always will be. Units are irrelevant.
#51 to #32

jackassalope
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [] What i meant is that if you were to make your counting system basepi for some reason, though i expressed it poorly. Units wasn't really the right word, but I think most people refer to radians as a unit, and it is almost exactly this. The lack of units on radians is why using them always seems to confuse students who actually check their units at the end; you don't need to cancel out radians.
Another red thumb please.
Another red thumb please.
#40 to #32

jackassalope
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [] Lol, internet tough guy over here thumbing down all of my comments.
#68 to #32

jackassalope
Reply 1 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [] red thumbs are boring, decided to give you green because who ******* cares about thumbs.
#57 to #20

dontknowmeatall
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [] I was the top student in my math class and they never taught us that. When I asked, teachers would only say "because that's the way it is, now shut up and solve the problem". I now study a nomathrelated major.
#72 to #67

fanfiction
Reply 1 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [] ******* amerifats
this is why the rest of the world hates you, you retarded faggots
you don't even learn basic maths
this is why the rest of the world hates you, you retarded faggots
you don't even learn basic maths
#76 to #72

dontknowmeatall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [] I don't know about the other two guys, but I'm Mexican. We're third world, according to the USA and the EU. And you are a dick.
#3

wertgf
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [] It's cool, but it just proves that
Pi = c/d
Pi = c/d
#56 to #3

rollinquads
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [] yeah, but if helps as a visual for people who might be visual learners/ not great at understanding math... I would argue that for someone first learning the concept of pi, this would be a great tool
#54

deathleprechaun
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [] How can content now get so many thumbs simply by giving the definition of Pi?
Reposted content, I might add...
Reposted content, I might add...
#79 to #54

ihaveakeyboard [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [] some people (like me) understood pi, but just never could picture it.
that's why I posted it reposted it if you'd rather
that's why I posted it reposted it if you'd rather
#43

anon id: 9b58abbb
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [] I'm sad I work with binary and hex number systems. No pie for me
#71 to #43

seventythree
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [] You can still have pi in binary & hex. Look it up.