It is currently Sat Sep 23, 2017 3:04 am

Pi

1 + 1 = 2? maybe.

Pi

I would like to discuss the man who recited pi to 100000 decimal places from his memory. Yes, I know the human brain is capable of many extraordinary things when trained correctly but have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, the man memorized the beginning portion of pi and then calculated from here on out. Discuss:
Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid;

humans are incredibly slow, inaccurate and brilliant;

together they are powerful beyond imagination.

- Albert Einstein

BlackMumba

Posts: 943
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: TX <-- I'm here

Is there no one who has an opinion?
Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid;

humans are incredibly slow, inaccurate and brilliant;

together they are powerful beyond imagination.

- Albert Einstein

BlackMumba

Posts: 943
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: TX <-- I'm here

What is the man's name?

MileHighGeekGuy

Posts: 1482
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:03 am

MileHighGeekGuy wrote:What is the man's name?

His name is Akira Haraguchi, 61. He needed more than 16 hours to recite the number!
Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid;

humans are incredibly slow, inaccurate and brilliant;

together they are powerful beyond imagination.

- Albert Einstein

BlackMumba

Posts: 943
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: TX <-- I'm here

I do not know how you could calculate pi in your head by memorizing the beginning and going from there...

Care to elaborate?

MileHighGeekGuy

Posts: 1482
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:03 am

MileHighGeekGuy wrote:I do not know how you could calculate pi in your head by memorizing the beginning and going from there...

Care to elaborate?

Well, all Pi is 22/7. I am saying that you memorize the first part of pi, from 3.14..... to n, from n on ( n/then) you calculate Pi. What is the procedure for calculating pi? First you must remember the calculated part you ended off at n and then you calculate from then on.

Example of calculating from n subscript 0 onwards. 7 goes into 22 3 times, you scream out 3 to everyone, there is a remainder of 1. Scream out '.'. add 0 to 1 to create 10. 7 goes in to 10 1 times, scream out 1, remainder 3. add 0 to 3 to get 30. 7 goes into 30 4 times, scream out 4, remainder 2. Add on 0 to 2 to get 20. 7 goes into 20 2 times, scream out 2, remainder 6......

Get the point. You are using short term memory. Basically, your elementary math skills ,division and subtraction, are the hurdles of this simple idea of resiting pi.
Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid;

humans are incredibly slow, inaccurate and brilliant;

together they are powerful beyond imagination.

- Albert Einstein

BlackMumba

Posts: 943
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: TX <-- I'm here

Pi isn't 22/7, that's just an estimate...
<a href="http://0mn1p0t3nc3.no workie" target="_top"><img src="http://badges.no workie/badge/0/1/15018.png" alt="Click to view my Personality Profile page" border="0" /></a>

Have YOU ever been eaten by a grue?

FutureAstronaut

Posts: 1611
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:25 am
Location: Nerdtests.com (Do you really need more than my virtual location?)

FutureAstronaut wrote:Pi isn't 22/7, that's just an estimate...

I was under the impression that pi is 22/7, that is what I was taught in school.
Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid;

humans are incredibly slow, inaccurate and brilliant;

together they are powerful beyond imagination.

- Albert Einstein

BlackMumba

Posts: 943
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: TX <-- I'm here

FutureAstronaut wrote:Pi isn't 22/7, that's just an estimate...

After a little search I see what you mean, 22/7 is an estimate, my mistake. pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, thus if you measure the diameter and the circumference of the circle accurately you will get two values which you can use in the same method that I stated above.
Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid;

humans are incredibly slow, inaccurate and brilliant;

together they are powerful beyond imagination.

- Albert Einstein

BlackMumba

Posts: 943
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: TX <-- I'm here

BlackMumba wrote:
FutureAstronaut wrote:Pi isn't 22/7, that's just an estimate...

After a little search I see what you mean, 22/7 is an estimate, my mistake. pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, thus if you measure the diameter and the circumference of the circle accurately you will get two values which you can use in the same method that I stated above.

The method used is to apply calculus to the perimeter if an infinitely-sided regular polygon. The limit of the ratio of perimeter (which in a circle becomes the circumference) to a bisecting line segment (which in a circle becomes the "diameter") as the number of identical facets approaches infinity is Pi.

For example, an equilateral triangle is a very poor estimate. If you look at a triangle inscribed in a circle, it becomes intuitively obvious that the perimeter of the triangle is far smaller than the perimeter of the circle. Now try a square. It is a closer approximation. Now try a regular octagon. It is closer. Now try a 100-sided polygon. It will look almost like the polygon and circle are the same. By the time you get to a 1000-sided polygon, the difference between the inscribed polygon and circle will undoubtedly be indistinguishable to the naked eye unless drawn on a massive scale.

Now imagine a polygon with infinite sides. Literally, a polygon with a an infinite number of sides, each with a side length of one (infineitly small) point. This becomes a set of all points in a plane equidistant from a focus. It may appear that definitionally, it is a circle. The problem is that the number of sides (infinite) and the length of the sides (infinitely small) is undefined, so you can't say they are the same thing. But the limit, applying calculus, of the polygon IS definitionally the same as a circle, and, therefore, the relationship that comprises pi can be described and calculated to an obscene number of digits.

Additionally, it is interesting to note that the man who performed the feat has a Japanese name. The japanese educational system relies heavily on rote memorization, as opposed to the Socratic method employed in the West. Their system places more value on learning what you are told, as opposed to asking questions. This was also the case in many ancient Western cultures, especially those that relied very heavily on oral histories, like the ancient Irish. There are many tales of amazing feats of memorization among cultures that, even though they now record events in writing, have a relatively recent tradition of oral histories. Literary historian and author Frank O'Connor tells of a Kerry fisherman who could recite then painfully verbose Lament for Art O'Leary some number of decades after the only time he had ever heard it. It is quite amazing the memorizational abilities fostered in cultures that value them.
<a href="http://www.stupidtester.com/ref.html">
</a>

Harmless Drudge

Posts: 173
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Here

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests