I don't believe that math is a true science if π is an unresolved number. I think that our explanation of the universe through math is no more accurate than our explanations of god(s).\n\nπ is a bleeding flaw, no?
120293
The real world contains minute details that can never be measured with total accuracy. But even though we can't do better than approximations, the unnatural precision in our made-up math enables us to at least better our understanding of things, as we better our approximations.\n\nI'm not sure what you mean by suggesting that math is "flawed". For one, math is not really all about numbers, it is about logic--the logic that first led us to reason that there existed transcendental numbers (also not sure what you mean by "unresolved"). I think part of the problem is that you've been led to a mistaken belief about what math purports to be. Math is not science--at least, it is certainly not a science of the natural world because a lot of real mathematics considers situations that are not considered to necessarily exist in reality. If anything, math is a science of ideas, and even that is waxing poetic a bit. As far as natural science is concerned, math is a conceptual tool--it can form the backbone of scientific theories but it is not science.\n\nExplaining the universe through math is "no more accurate than our explanations of god(s)"? How can you possibly hope to justify such a statement? Are you saying that theology, in the complete absence of math, could enable us to correctly land probes on distant planets, or design electronic computers, etc.?
556783
Sure, it makes logical sense as an idea. But how helpful are these categories in reasoning? I dont imagine that they would be very helpful at all since it is very unlikely to ever find two things that are exactly alike. They might look alike but dont forget about the very subatomic particles which comprise them. Just food for thought.
605266
Sounds kind of vague and wrong.  Gaps don't prove anything.  Gaps are the unknown.  We can make educated guesses about what happens in them, though.  The laws of physics create logical progression through a series of systematic methodical stages.  That is happening everywhere, all the time.  God doesn't have anything to do with it, unless he wrote the laws of physics, and then left.
109332
I vote for infinity, because when studied one finds out that it is even more puzzling and contradictory than it appears on the surface.\n\nGeorg Cantor, listed in a previous answer, proved some very surprising things about infinity. In fact Cantor's work lead to set theory, which most students have seen to some degree, even in high school.\n\nHere's a few commonly taught items about infinite that Cantor discovered:\n\n+ There are various degrees of infinity, not just one.\n\n+ The two most commonly described degrees of infinity are countably infinite and uncountably infinite. Countably infinite means that all elements in that set map to the set of integers. Uncoutably infinite means that there are even more in that set than there are integers.\n\n+ Rational numbers, i.e., fractions, are countably infinite. That means there's a one-to-one mapping between fractions and integers. (Dove-Tail Proof)\n\n+ Real numbers, i.e., includes all [non-repeating] decimals are uncountably infinite. That means there are more reals than rationals even if both sets are infinite. (Diagonalization Proof)\n\n+ Buy using a set theory technique, the set of infinte sets can be grown to even "larger" sets of infinity. In fact, there's an infinite degree of infinite sets.\n\nCantor also had a hypothesis that there was no set of size in between the basic countable and uncountable degrees of infinity, but he couldn't prove it, and it turns out for good reason. Well after his death, other mathematicians proved that his continuum hypothesis could not be proven nor disproven, but that starts to open up a whole new can of worms.
96327
A very good question.\n\nTo me God is what we are not able to understand beause of our limitations.  I don't tend to define or anthromorphize God so it is easy for me to accept God's existance and all of science.  I tend to think of God more as the unknowable forces at play in everyday life more than as a creator but am perfectly willing to accept that as well.\n\nGod is only a problem when we try too hard to define what God is.
17241
Jan 17 Note: If this is hard to understand, after sleeping on it, I may have an easier construction.\nIf you need further explanation, add another note to your question.\n\n-----------\n\nI think I have a solution.\nI'm making the assumptions that the Babylonians didn't have an acurate value for pi and used the value three. If I do that, every thing falls out.\n\nDraw a cirlce. Mark off 2 arcs. Make one the top portion of a circle say from 10 o'clock to 2 o'clock, the other the matching arc from 4 o'clock to 8 o'clock. Note: These arcs are just to get a representation of the problem and are not an acurate length.\n\nNext draw the two chords for the arcs, that is, the straight line from 10 to 2 and the other from 8 to 4.\nNow draw in the diameter of the circle from 12 o'clock to 6 o'clock.\nThe two chords cut off pieces on the ends of the diameter. Label these as length 2 (2 is the perpendicular) "Double 2 and get 4" That's the length of the two end pieces of the diameter.\n"Take 4 from 20 and get 16" This is where using 3 as a value for pi comes in. If pi 3, then a circle of circumference 60 will have a diameter of 20, so let the length of the diameter be 20. Taking 4 from 20 gives you the length of the diameter that is between the 2 chords, 16.\n\n"Square 20 get 400, square 16 get 256, take 256 from 400 get 144. Find the square root of 144. 12, the square root, is the chord."\n\nWe're obviously doing some Pythagorean theorem here so where is the triangle? \nDraw the diameter of the circle from 8 o'clock to 2 o'clock, that's the hypoteneuse as has length 20.\nThe distance between the two cords is 16. That's also the distance from 8 o'clock to 10 o'clock. Draw that line and label it 16. (Remember the drawing isn't accurate just enough to show us how things are layed out).\nThat leave the 3rd side of the triangle as the chord between 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock. \n\n20^2 - 16^2 = 12^2  so 12 is the length of the chord.\n\nHow does that sound?\n\nIn modern English, the statement of the problem would be something like this:\n\nLet AB be an arc of a circle of circumference 60. Let X be the chord connecting A and B.\nLet Y be the perpendicular bisector of the chord. If the distance from X to the circle along Y is 2, find the length of X. (You may assume that pi = 3 for the purposes of solving this problem.)
139559
no pi has not been miscalculated. the APPROXIMATE VALUE of pi is 22/7 . it is NOT the exact value. the actual value of pie is the number you get when you divide the circumferance of any circle by its diameter.
613555
mathematical dilemma. there is no answer to the question. Well at least none that are known. Just like the elements we know there out there but we have to figure them out first.  just like Einstein theory of fusion. its passable just not proved.
444454
To paraphrase your question, is it possible for π to contain, say, 129 successive 3's but not 130 of them?\n\nIf the digits of π are truly random then it would contain any possible sequence, not only the above special cases. This property of "normality" is conjectured, but not known to be true.\n\nThe website in the Source allows you to find sequences in the first 200 million digits of π. Example: 777777777 occurs, but 7777777777 does not occur in the first 200 million digits of π.
100457
Yes this is a hard topic to understand the only way I can explain it is to imagine that space "curves" onto itself. Thus is finite.\n\nThe reality is an actual infinity can not exist, its something conceptual, impossible lack understanding of what an actual infinity is, it can exist mathematically as an Ideal, but not in reality as that is physically impossible.\n\nLook at the attributes of infinity:\n\n(1) You can not add to infinity\n(2) Any part of infinity is the same as the entire "set"\n\nWhen we trace our Universe back to the big bang we end up with a singularity, this is where "Science and physics break down" it can not be really explained and we have to go to a higher source of knowledge i.e. theology.\n\nWhat I will end on is saying that one of the Attributes of the Creator is that he is infinite.\n\nI hope that helps\n\nAnhar Hussain Miah
426023
Its beautiful, its elegant and it  holds promise. Its true that its some what stagnant in last few years but that doesn't mean we should start disbelieving it. If you cannot test something  experimentally that does not mean that it is incorrect.  You can refute something straight away only when you have proved it to be wrong.  While  thinking about a theory of everything, we must always keep a open mind. We should also for similar reasons give heed to other attempts towards a theory of everything.
1748
Ok friend i will like to give the answer in 2 point of view.\n1)Scientific:As there is no existence of God according to science the number of God is always zero.However for the existence of universe there can't be another universe other than it because if u think of the word "existence" it is defined in such a way which includes space and time in it.That is existence of something means some instance of that event in a particular point of space time structure.But both space and time are limited to this universe.So there is nothing(actually there is no existence of word to describe this) beyond the universe.\n\n2)Philosophically:According to Hindu Philosophy(I have only learnt it and am satisfied)there is nothing name GOD.It's a word that describe the whole thing.What u say "aprior",past,time ,space,universe there is nothing such that.It's only what ur mind reflects to YOU from this universe.This YOU is the GOD.The reason behind it is the simple fact that something cannot be created from nothing it can only change forms.So it exist all the time and including the time.There is no numbers so no limits.But why the YOU feels something which is different from YOU as we feel new experience from the universe. This described as MAYA a camouflage created from that YOU to make the discriminations.\n So there is not many GOD nor one GOD it's YOU God which can't be described by numbers.
629447
π = 4 * (1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + 1/9 - 1/11 + ...)\n\nunfortunately, you need 100000 terms to calculate π to 5 decimal places.\n\nAlso,\n\nπ = 2√3 * (1 - 1/(3*3) + 1/(5*3^2) + ... + (-1)^k/[(2k+1)(3^k)] + ...]\n\nor, a method used by computers to calculate π in the past by Stormer (1896) is:\n\nπ = 24arctan(1/8) + 8arctan(1/57) + 4arctan(1/239)\n\nwhere arctan(x) = x - x^3/3 + x^5/5 - x^7/7 + ...\n\nSo while it is true that you will never get the "exact" value of π to be stored in a calculator, you can determine it to an arbitrarily small error by adding in more terms from the above infinite series.  \n\nNOTE TO "THE SHADOW"  Pi is not an exact value?  Of course it is!  It is the exact ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.  Just because its transcendental doesnt mean it isnt exact.  Its just that no numerical representation of pi will be its exact value.\n\nNOTE TO "iandanielx"  Of course there are equations that lead to pi.  I just gave a few. (Only the follow up question implied the use of algebraic numbers due to a calculator being involved.)  And accurate enough?  30 digits of pi is enough to calculate the circumference of the universe given its diameter to within the diameter of an atom.\n\nNOTE TO:  "countryboy_giddy_up" (IF IT GOES TO A VOTE, THE 4TH ANSWER!)\n12 hours ago\n\nYour plagerism is laughable.  You obviously copied your answer from another website, and in pasting it into this thread, many of the text (formulae, etc.) that you stole to represent as your own was not pastable into the text editor of yahoo.\n\nIt is incredibly evident.\n\nIf this goes to a vote and anyone (besides him) votes 'best answer' I will have no further faith in this blog or at least its voters.
932
****Edit to clarify******\nWhile the professor below is correct, and the poster below him is partially correct, you can only assume that the course is complete if you include the finite answer as an infinate series.\n\nThe prime example of this is that 1.999 repeating is NOT equal to 2.0 unless 2.0 is infinite, ie 2.000000 repeating.  You can not deal with unlike in infinate numbers.  Ie, you can not translate an infinite number to a finite number and still have the same premise.  \n\nSo unless the data deals with an infinate equality, the runner never will reach his destination.\n*********end edit***********\n\nWhile it is true that the runner will finish the course, as we know that every course has a start and ending point; in regards to math, unless the start and end are constants and predefined, the answer is simple:  THe runner will never reach the end.  The reason for this is that without a predefined set of start and end, the course is continous.
640560
the concept of time cannot be just related to this parallel. the creation as a result of a big bang is just a theory, it has not been proven. not having time before the big bang is beyond understanding. however the infinity can be proven (for example the number pi) that in my opinion shows that the creation was pre-planned in someway by a supreme being (a freemason would say).
38055
Actually, there are rather sophistocated ways of proving that pi is irrational, which means that it can never be written completely in decimal form. I have seen a proof before, but the concepts were too difficult for me to grasp. Therefore, we ARE SURE that pi can never be fully expressed as a decimal expansion, i.e. it will go on forever with no repeating pattern.\n\nHere is just one web example for the proof. \n\nhttp://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~hr/numb/pi-irr.html
144992
my claim is that the number is infinite.  here is the reason, it depends on who you classify as a mathematician and what date you want to start at.  Also i claim that you can move forward in time, which i will claim is infinite, and find more mathematicians bore in march.