Dear Brij, Joe, and All, I have always liked the approximation of � (pi) that is 355/113 (3.141�592�9). I heard that this approximation is ancient and comes from China, but I have never been able to confirm that. I like it because it only uses the first three odd digits and it is more accurate than 22/7.
Cheers, Pat Naughtin LCAMS Geelong, Australia on 2003-01-17 02.14, Joseph B. Reid at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Brij Bhushan Vij wrote in USMA 24467: > >> Madan, Bill and friends: >> I have had the oppertunity of examining most values for Pi used by >> man since (I could trace) and believe that *without defining Pi or >> 'radian'* the sign of equation for circle (=2 Pi radians) is >> incomplete. The data, I worked is placed at: >> http://the-light.com/cal/bbv_pi-radian.jpg >> It may be observed that NO VALUE for Pi fits the above criteria, >> since all suffer from its *truncation limit* during its evaluation. >> My suggestion to use Pi=100000/31831 (exactly) had a run in computer >> (1973) and in 'decimal notation' repeat all by itself after 5244th >> decimal, over and over again. This fixes the value for Pi, and also >> fixes the value for 'Radian = 57.2958 degree'; to make the >> definition meaningful. >> Regards, >> Brij B. Vij TIME: to think Metric!<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> <And Calendar too> >> > >> I was suspicious of this posting since I had always regarded pi as >> irrational. A favorite exercise for underused super-computers is >> adding a few hundred more digits to the value of pi. I have just >> referred to Hardy's "Pure Mathematics" where I found the following: > "It has been shown (though the proof is long and difficult) that this > number pi is not the root of any algebraic equation with integral > coefficients," > On page 382 of Hardy we find: > pi/4 = 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - .... > I believe that there are more-rapidly convergent series for pi, but I > can't put my hands on them.
