Your Maths is Pi, Your Experiment is Phew

When the entire universe grows bigger, the math calculation left behind a little bit or slightly expired.
You did your best to measure a circumference, but it will show C/D = 3.16 something or 3.17 something.
3.14? Oh, that's too small baby..

When the entire universe grows bigger, the math calculation left behind a little bit or slightly expired.
You did your best to measure a circumference, but it will show C/D = 3.16 something or 3.17 something.
3.14? Oh, that's too small baby..

"phew is stranger than fiction" ~

So try to reach pi=3.14 in experiment. You'll fail to do it.
No matter how correct the pi maths is, in updated reality your calculation will be just in the dream land.

So try to reach pi=3.14 in experiment. You'll fail to do it.
No matter how correct the pi maths is, in updated reality your calculation will be just in the dream land.

So try to reach pi=3.14 in experiment. You'll fail to do it.
No matter how correct the pi maths is, in updated reality your calculation will be just in the dream land.

Quote from: Danang on March 23, 2023, 08:52:30 AM

So try to reach pi=3.14 in experiment. You'll fail to do it.
No matter how correct the pi maths is, in updated reality your calculation will be just in the dream land.

I did try it in an experiment and the result confirmed that pi is correct.

Quote from: Danang on March 23, 2023, 08:52:30 AM

So try to reach pi=3.14 in experiment. You'll fail to do it.
No matter how correct the pi maths is, in updated reality your calculation will be just in the dream land.

Well that's not true and you know it.  I already proved pi by direct measurement and testing and provided you the video.  I even did your 6 radian test and proved phew wrong.  You have yet to debunk my video and when I originally posted it you even admitted pi was correct on your blog.

So, I'm curious...why keep pushing phew when you've already conceded that pi is correct?

Mike

Here you go Danang. A good book for you

Very simple experiment:

We draw two random numbers x,y between 0 and 1. Then (x,y) lies within the unit square. A circle with radius 1 covers an area of pi, the overlap of the area with the unit square is pi/4.

So the chance that the pair of random numbers is within the circle is pi/4.

Run the following python code snippet. See how if you increase the number of samples the result gets closer and closer to (the real value of) pi:

Code: [Select]

import numpy as np

n_samples = 10**8 #number of points drawn

x,y = np.random.uniform(0,1,size=(2,n_samples)) #draw the points
within_circle = (x**2+y**2)<1 #all points with x^2+y^2<1 are within the circle
print(np.sum(within_circle)/n_samples*4) #the number of points within the circle divided by the total number of points is pi/4

Certainly not the most efficient way to get pi, but the easiest.

Quote from: Kami on March 23, 2023, 01:46:57 PM

Very simple experiment:

We draw two random numbers x,y between 0 and 1. Then (x,y) lies within the unit square. A circle with radius 1 covers an area of pi, the overlap of the area with the unit square is pi/4.

So the chance that the pair of random numbers is within the circle is pi/4.

Run the following python code snippet. See how if you increase the number of samples the result gets closer and closer to (the real value of) pi:

Code: [Select]

import numpy as np

n_samples = 10**8 #number of points drawn

x,y = np.random.uniform(0,1,size=(2,n_samples)) #draw the points
within_circle = (x**2+y**2)<1 #all points with x^2+y^2<1 are within the circle
print(np.sum(within_circle)/n_samples*4) #the number of points within the circle divided by the total number of points is pi/4

Certainly not the most efficient way to get pi, but the easiest.

The calculation is right, but you can ask Jack how he frustrated to approach pi. The experiment results generally go beyond pi.

That's different experience from JackBlack's. Also from mine.

If JackBlack is quiet about something ~ like in this thread ~, it means such "something" is already verified.

Quote from: Danang on September 11, 2023, 01:42:32 AM

That's different experience from JackBlack's. Also from mine.

If JackBlack is quiet about something ~ like in this thread ~, it means such "something" is already verified.

Yeah? Have you run the code and gotten a different result? Can you post what you have gotten?

Quote from: Kami on September 18, 2023, 11:58:56 AM

Quote from: Danang on September 11, 2023, 01:42:32 AM

That's different experience from JackBlack's. Also from mine.

If JackBlack is quiet about something ~ like in this thread ~, it means such "something" is already verified.

Yeah? Have you run the code and gotten a different result? Can you post what you have gotten?

It's better to run statistic of experiment: whether pi is hard to get or easy to get. So far it's hard to get pi.

"Formula equals experiment" is just an assumption.

The universe's size changes in any moment, all the time. The universe goes bigger and bigger, along with anything and anyone in it.
Have you heard physicists said such statement?

The calculation is right, but you can ask Jack how he frustrated to approach pi. The experiment results generally go beyond pi.

That's different experience from JackBlack's.

It's better to run statistic of experiment: whether pi is hard to get or easy to get. So far it's hard to get pi.

JackBack forgot what he said.

To approach pi in experiment is hard, isn't it? ~