## The Impossibility Of The First 100 Decimal Places Of Pi...

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

### Re: The Impossibility Of The First 100 Decimal Places Of Pi.

Motor Daddy wrote:"Pi" is not a number. "Pi" is a symbol, or word, used to represent a number compared to 1, which is a ratio.

There's a symbol and there's a concept attached to that symbol. Symbols in general have a very high level of visibility because they tend come in the form of physical objects (such as written words.) The concepts that are attached to them, however, are less visible, and thus, kind of elusive (requiring a higher degree of intelligence.)

We have a "Pi", a sequence of letters "P" and "i", that is a symbol, and an attached concept expressed by the statement "the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter". When we say that "X" is something, we generally refer to the attached concept, not the symbol itself. When I speak of a cat, I do not speak of letter "c" followed by letter "a" followed by letter "t", I speak of the concept that is attached to it, which happens to be that of an animal.

"Pi" and "3.14" are literally two different symbols with the same exact meaning i.e. the same exact concept is attached to both. The sequence of characters "3", ".", "1" and "4" is not a number but a symbol representing a number. Exactly like how it is with "Pi".

The character "3" isn't a number either, it's a numeral and a digit.

What you don't seem to comprehend is that "pi" is not a "1" in the the x position relative to the point: X0.0.

If you think there is such a thing as "Pi.12" then you must think there is a thing such as 123.pi1212.. Right?

Do you think there is a "12pi31.21"??

The symbol "Pi" is not one of the Arabic numerals. Also, the number represented by "Pi" is not represented by any of the Arabic numerals. That's why the above expressions are invalid. It has nothing to do with whether or not "Pi" is a number. "Ten" is a number but there is no Arabic numeral "ten" and no Arabic digit representing number ten.

Are you really that stupid?

Quite the opposite, in fact.
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend

Posts: 6117
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

### Re: The Impossibility Of The First 100 Decimal Places Of Pi.

obsrvr524 wrote:base10 3 in basePi is 3

So you're saying 1.0 in base Pi is this many "0"
So you're saying 2.0 in base Pi is this many "0 0"
So you're saying 3.0 in base Pi is this many "0 0 0"

How many is "10.0" in base Pi??

Let us take the example of base 60.

1.0 in base 60 is this many "0"

2.0 in base 60 is this many "0 0"

3.0 in base 60 is this many "0 0 0"

10.0 in base 60 is this many "0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0"

Let us divide 0 into three base 10 0's using base 60.

01.00 in base 60 is this many "0"

If we divide "0" into "0 0 0",

Each "0" in the second set is

00.20 in base 60. origami
Philosopher

Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

### Re: The Impossibility Of The First 100 Decimal Places Of Pi.

I ssuppose one could say that, if doing the division with base ten, one would first divide the pie into 10 parts, and then try to make one third by adding enough parts to be one less than a third, then splitting another piece into ten, and repeating the process, which indeed would never end and would be an invalid process, the piece would never be divided into three.

If we divide the pie using base 60, we would first divide the pie into 60 parts, and then add enough to have one third minus one, then complete with another one piece, and the division would be complete.

One of the hardest things when getting serious about math is understanding the difference between a number and a proportion, a fraction.

In this sense, while I have explained away the confusion regarding divisions by 3 in base 10, I have not really solved the problem of pi. Pi is such a proportion of the number one on any base that the process of dividing by the base and then adding enough pieces from that group, stopping 1 before being 1 over pi, and then dividing the remaining piece by that base and repeating the process until 1 full piece completes the division is impossible. In that sense, it can truly be doubted whether indeed pi is a number at all. It is a proportion, and most proportions we know can be numbers, but pi is an example of a proportion that has no number. origami
Philosopher

Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

### Re: The Impossibility Of The First 100 Decimal Places Of Pi.

As a corollary, this also explains the problem with 0.999....

Using a strict division, dividing a number into proportion, one would split the piece into ten pieces, then add the pieces until they added up to one less, then divide the remaining piece the same way, ad infinitum. Because this process would never end, it is not an actual number, what it is is a description in the terms of the proper procedure of division from number to proportion of the proportion of 1 that gives 1. At any given part of the progression, one could simply add a full piece and arrive at one. In the case of pi, for example, that moment never arrives. In the case of one third, it also never arrives when using base ten, but it arrives when using base, for example, 60. One base ten third in base 60 can be expressed as the number 0.20, or the proportion 00.191919.... origami
Philosopher

Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

### Re: The Impossibility Of The First 100 Decimal Places Of Pi.

Excuse me, I made a mistake in my last post. It is not that at any point in the progression a full piece can be added and end the division. It is that at the first point where one full piece completes the division, a full piece can replace the endless progresson and complete the division. Apologies.

Another correction, one base ten third in base 60 would be represented as the proces 00.19595959.... origami
Philosopher

Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

### Re: The Impossibility Of The First 100 Decimal Places Of Pi.

origami wrote:One base ten third in base 60 can be expressed as the number 0.20, or the proportion 00.191919....

I don't think that's correct.

In base 60, the concept of 20(base10) would be a single character.

So you have 10=A, 11=B, 12=C, 13=D, 14=E, 15=F, 16=G, 17=H, 18=I, 19=J, 20=K

So in base 60, 1/3 = 0.K

And when you say 0.1919191919, I assume then that you're suggesting 0.JJJJJ... = 0.K

But that's not the case. 0.JJJ... doesn't = 0.K for the same reason that 0.111111... doesn't equal 0.2 in base 10.

origami wrote:Another correction, one base ten third in base 60 would be represented as the proces 00.19595959....

Sorry, missed this on my first pass. I think you mean 0.(19)(59)(59)(59)..., where (19) and (59) are treated each as a single character. In which case, yeah, that would be correct I think. Flannel Jesus

Posts: 6293
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:32 pm

### Re: The Impossibility Of The First 100 Decimal Places Of Pi.

It doesn't matter if it's a single character or not, what matters is that there are separate orders. Since we only have numerals up to 9, you use two. The original base 60 was done using sticks and wedges. I didn't feel the expressions were complicated enough to require punctuation between orders. But yes, you get it. The difference is between a number and a proportion. Number 20, or proportion 19.595959... This doesn't mean 3 in base 60 is 20, 3 is still three. The difference is between number, 3 being 3, and proportion, 0.333... being 0.20, or, even more strictly, 0.19595959...

What is infinite is only the projected process. The proportion is finite, and so is the number, when there is a number.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway origami
Philosopher

Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

### Re: The Impossibility Of The First 100 Decimal Places Of Pi.

1.0 can not be divided into 60 equal parts, because 1.0 divided by 60 = 0.0166666... so in base 60 "0.1" is 1.666...% which is not a finite number.

1/3 (1 part of 3 equal parts) of 60 eggs is 20 eggs, 2/3 (2 parts of 3 equal parts) of 60 eggs is 40 eggs, and 3/3 (3 parts of 3 equal parts) of 60 eggs is 60 eggs.

1/3 of 100% of the eggs is 33.333...%, but 33.333...% x 3 = 99.999...% of the eggs, which is LESS THAN 100% of the eggs!

The problem arises from the FACT that the division of 1 divided by 3 can not be completed, which means there are always 4 parts, which is not to be confused with 3 equal parts. Duh?

Your failure to acknowledge that point and move on while disregarding it amounts to intellectual dishonesty.

"Oh look, the division can't be completed so let's just sweep the remainder under the rug and call it good at 1/3." That is total BS!
Last edited by Motor Daddy on Wed Jun 22, 2022 11:40 pm, edited 1 time in total. Philosopher

Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 5:32 pm

### Re: The Impossibility Of The First 100 Decimal Places Of Pi.

Motor Daddy wrote:1.0 can not be divided into 60 equal parts, because 1.0 divided by 60 = 0.0166666... so in base 60 "0.1" is 1.666...% which is not a finite number.

1/3 (1 part of 3 equal parts) of 60 eggs is 20 eggs, 2/3 (2 parts of 3 equal parts) of 60 eggs is 40 eggs, and 3/3 (3 parts of 3 equal parts) of 60 eggs is 60 eggs.

1/3 of 100% of the eggs is 33.333...%, but 33.333...% x 3 = 99.999...% of the eggs, which is LESS THAN 100% of the eggs!

The problem arises from the FACT that the division of 1 divided by 3 can not be completed, which means there are always 4 parts, which is not to be confused with 3 equal parts. Duh?

Your failure to acknowledge that point and move on while disregarding it amounts to intellectual dishonesty.

"Oh look, the division can't be completed so let's just sweep the remainder under the rug and call it good at 1/3." That is total BS!

Thanks for bringing the total BS back to eggs at least. He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me." iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 46376
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

### Re: The Impossibility Of The First 100 Decimal Places Of Pi.

And the forth part is consistent wit an (x) - ranging from 3 - < x>>> spread, just guesstigmating.
Meno_
The Invisible One

Posts: 13241
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

### Re: The Impossibility Of The First 100 Decimal Places Of Pi.

Why is motor still talking about eggs? He's already admitted that eggs don't care what base you're doing your math in, which means he's already admitted that base 10 doesn't matter, any base logic applies to eggs equally well.

So who cares if you can't make a finite decimal out of 1/3 in base 10? What does that have to do with eggs? Flannel Jesus

Posts: 6293
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:32 pm

### Re: The Impossibility Of The First 100 Decimal Places Of Pi.

Motor Daddy wrote:1.0 can not be divided into 60 equal parts, because 1.0 divided by 60 = 0.0166666... so in base 60 "0.1" is 1.666...% which is not a finite number.

This is arbitrary. We could just as easily say that 1 cannot be divided into 7 because 01.00 divided by seven is 00,083417083417083417...

If anything, base 60 has been used in math for a longer time than base 10, and would have primacy.

Proportion.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway origami
Philosopher

Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

### Re: The Impossibility Of The First 100 Decimal Places Of Pi.

Numbers denote wholes. Amount of wholes. How many equal wholes up to a maximum of ten make up the hole left by removing a piece from a bigger whole? If the ten limitation doesn't allow you to get the exact amount, you find the remainder of the new lack with ten equal wholes.

Ten equal wholes can never configure into an exact third of a greater whole. However, sixty equal wholes can. You put 20 of those equal wholes together, and have a shiny exact third.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway origami
Philosopher

Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

### Re: The Impossibility Of The First 100 Decimal Places Of Pi.

origami wrote:
Motor Daddy wrote:1.0 can not be divided into 60 equal parts, because 1.0 divided by 60 = 0.0166666... so in base 60 "0.1" is 1.666...% which is not a finite number.

This is arbitrary. We could just as easily say that 1 cannot be divided into 7 because 01.00 divided by seven is 00,083417083417083417...

If anything, base 60 has been used in math for a longer time than base 10, and would have primacy.

Proportion.

Of course, 1 is not divisible by 7 in base ten either. The problem is that 60 is a superior base to 10, and can do any operation 10 can, so an example that reverses the problem can't be found.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway origami
Philosopher

Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

### Re: The Impossibility Of The First 100 Decimal Places Of Pi.

Motor Daddy wrote:1.0 can not be divided into 60 equal parts, because 1.0 divided by 60 = 0.0166666... so in base 60 "0.1" is 1.666...% which is not a finite number.

It's a finite number. It's just not a finite operation in base 100 (as in %, per cent, per hundred).
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway origami
Philosopher

Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

### Re: The Impossibility Of The First 100 Decimal Places Of Pi.

As a final condensation,

Making 60 equal parts is easy. You take one part, one "0", and then add another "0" of the exact same size, and do this until you have 60 of them. Now, you have a whole divided into 60. Same as you would do for 10, or any other base of a real number.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway origami
Philosopher

Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Previous 