Slashdot Mirror


1.7 Billion Digits Of Pi On CD

H0ek writes "Not that there is any use for this whatsoever, but there is a torrent available for 1.7 billion digits of pi on a CD. The data is everything after the '3.' on one line, bzipped. There are a couple of the Cygwin tools on the disk as well as source for a small search tool (because grep just didn't cut it this time). Inside the ISO there's links to the source of the data, in case you want the rest of the 4.2 billion digits available. Wear your geek badge with pride! Be the first kid on your block to have the entire set!"

202 comments

  1. On a T-Shirt by stu_coates · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...and it's available on a T-Shirt from ThinkGeek... only in size XXXXXXXL. ;-)

    1. Re:On a T-Shirt by G-funk · · Score: 1

      Which is of course still a little tight around the middle on your average slashdotter.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
  2. Why not DVD? by ichimunki · · Score: 2, Funny

    You could probably get another several billion digits on there!

    --
    I do not have a signature
    1. Re:Why not DVD? by sycotic · · Score: 1

      I was thinking precisely the same thing..

      --
      -- If I were a fish, I'd be wet
    2. Re:Why not DVD? by renata.org · · Score: 1

      dual layer would be even better.

    3. Re:Why not DVD? by m_chan · · Score: 4, Funny

      Spoiler ahead:

      The last digit is 4.

      I also wrote a compression algorithm that will get you all the digits in 11 characters. Feel free to share with your friends:

      0123456789.

    4. Re:Why not DVD? by renata.org · · Score: 1

      Does your compression algorith also hides the 11th character?

    5. Re:Why not DVD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The eleventh character is the dot

    6. Re:Why not DVD? by dolmen.fr · · Score: 1

      The data is everything after the '3.'

      So you are wasting one character.

    7. Re:Why not DVD? by grudy · · Score: 0

      Postings from an insensitive clod:

      We all know the answer is "42" !!!

  3. pi memorization contests by gothzilla · · Score: 4, Funny

    Me and a friend of mine had a contest once to see who could memorize PI to the most number of decimals. He beat me badly. Needless to say he became a successful wealthy programmer while I still fix pc's for a living.
    Never underestimate the power of PI. :)

    1. Re:pi memorization contests by miTcixelsyD · · Score: 3, Funny

      Needless to say, he's living at home with Mom and you're actually dating women! :-p

    2. Re:pi memorization contests by gothzilla · · Score: 1

      omg I so have to email him now...thanks

    3. Re:pi memorization contests by Aerion · · Score: 2, Funny

      You should challenge him to another contest ... this time, to memorize pi backwards.

    4. Re:pi memorization contests by Kris_J · · Score: 1
      "Me and a friend of mine...", "...successful wealthy programmer...", "...pc's..."
      I'm sure that's not the only reason.
  4. about time by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

    one down, fifty thousand to go. the torrents-instead-of-mirrors-in-/.-news-items revolution has begun!

    1. Re:about time by Heftklammerdosierer! · · Score: 1

      Until the trackers get slashdotted.

    2. Re:about time by wed128 · · Score: 1

      Then we'll need .torrents for the .torrents...

  5. No 3? by SilkBD · · Score: 5, Funny
    The data is everything after the '3.' on one line, bzipped.

    What? They couldn't fit the '3' on the disc???

    --
    00101010
    1. Re:No 3? by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      probably because its stored not as text but as a number, thus would you rather store it as a floating point, or as a really large whole number and throw away the decimal.. I thought so.

    2. Re:No 3? by stienman · · Score: 2, Funny

      What? They couldn't fit the '3' on the disc???

      Duh! It's 30 times larger than the next digit, which is 2.5 times bigger than the next digit, etc.

      The biggest savings occurs by chopping off the "3."

      -Adam

    3. Re:No 3? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they figured you could memorize at least one digit in pi. I can't think of another good reason, except that it will compress a tiny bit better with only digits.

    4. Re:No 3? by rockwood · · Score: 1

      If they were slick they would have printed the "3." on the label of the CD - thus 'techincally' including it.

      --
      Never try to beat a professional at his own game!
    5. Re:No 3? by tonsofpcs · · Score: 1

      Or they could name the file '3.'

      --
      Why do we always overlook the simple things?

  6. Useless? by Xaroth · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Not that there is any use for this whatsoever..."

    I'm not so sure. Given that there are all sorts of interesting things about the number (a quick google search turned up this as an example), having a CD with the first couple billion digits could be useful for anyone playing around with statistical analysis of it.

    1. Re:Useless? by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And a statistical analysis of the digits of Pi would be useful because? :-)

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    2. Re:Useless? by Zocalo · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Interesting, and a step beyond just using Pi (or e, or...) as a source of sequences of random numbers but I can't help but feel that there is an element of "Bible Code Syndrome" here. There seems to be a similar obsession with finding a pattern in Pi as some have with finding messages from God in the Bible. What happens if we do a statistical analysis of every nth digit? What happens if we do an analysis of all the odd digits? Or even digits? What if we reverse the sequence and try again? Try again in other number bases?

      It's an infinite data set; apply an infinite number of methods of analysis and the odds are good that some of them will give results that might be considered meaningful. Even if you do find something, whether it's a something profound about the structure of the universe or even a message from God, you then have another problem. How are you then supposed to prove that it's not a statistical fluke keeping in mind that an infinite random data string will contain within itself every possible sequence?

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    3. Re:Useless? by illuvata · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why wouldn't they just generate it themself? For most people, downloading an ISO and extracting the archive would be slower than just to use something like this.

    4. Re:Useless? by museumpeace · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Far be it from me to step in a pile of God doodoo, especially on /. but...
      There is a pattern of sorts in the digits of Pi. Providing you don't mind working in hexadecimal, [why that base and no other?...any math PhD's in the audiance?] formula 29 on this page gives you a way to calculate any arbitrary digit of Pi without running a series calculation up to that digit's precision. If a formula for any digit, with independence from all other digits doesn't stretch the definition too much, I'll call it a pattern in the digits of Pi.
      I for one welcome a creator who would leave us such puzzles.

      --
      SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
    5. Re:Useless? by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Funny
      Why wouldn't they just generate it themself? For most people, downloading an ISO and extracting the archive would be slower than just to use something like this.


      Oh, man, you just spoiled this guys whole business model.

      Guess it's back to underpants.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:Useless? by Zocalo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Yeah, I'd come across that formula before which is where my reference to trying other numeric bases came from. Similarly the reference to the message from God in Pi was from "Contact" by Carl Sagan (the book, rather than the film, as well as a nice link back to the Bible Code. And that's where I have a problem; the usual approach is more akin to looking for a hidden message rather than finding a reason *why*.

      My own personal view is that few, if any, of these universal constants, whether mathematical like Pi and e, or physical like the speed of light and Plank's constant, are entirely arbitrary. There is a *reason* why Pi is 3.14159... instead of some other constant value, a reason why light travels at the speed that it does in a vacuum, and so on. While some of those reaons may be quite mundane, I think there are some profound insights into the nature and underlying structure of the universe hidden behind all those digits. Whether you would want to see that as pure science or looking for God's signature is entirely up to you.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    7. Re:Useless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardly 'digits' - it's a mere series expansion in powers of 1/16. A digit is an integer between 1 and 16 in this case, which those coefficients are not.

      By this logic, you'd say that the 5th digit of ln(9/10) is 1/5=0.2! Guess what, it's actually 6.

    8. Re:Useless? by Alsee · · Score: 2, Funny

      What if we reverse the sequence and try again?

      During step two you get laid.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    9. Re:Useless? by museumpeace · · Score: 1
      If I thought about it much, and I haven't since my grad school days, I'd pretty much agree with your stance on whether you even need to invoke an author of creation when, for all we know:
      1. the slightest alteration of the constants and the relationships that physics has found would cause all existance to wink out in a puff of impossible inconsistency [we have no choice of worlds and to talk of others is pointless]
      2. Yet there may be equally inescapable laws or logic that demand a univers must exist [of this I have NO certainty]
      A nice quote from the Math Quote Server:
      Smith, David Eugene
      One merit of mathematics few will deny: it says more in fewer words than any other science. The formula, e^iπ = -1 expressed a world of thought, of truth, of poetry, and of the religious spirit "God eternally geometrizes."
      In N. Rose Mathematical Maxims and Minims, Raleigh NC:Rome Press Inc., 1988.
      So, Pi and e are intimately entwined and thus are not at liberty to have arbitrary values...and I suspect, when we have penetrated to the bottom of all the puzzles, we will find that this is how it generally goes. That I hold that suspicion...THAT is my leap of faith [and could be viewed as a form of laziness if you like]
      --
      SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
    10. Re:Useless? by Mattcelt · · Score: 1

      I too am of the opinion that anything which can be algorithmically derived must have some sort of pattern. The fact that there is no such thing as a true random number generator gives us an limit we can approach asymptotically, os we know there is no finite limit to the accuracy of algorithms, only a limit to their applicability.

      Sometimes I think God created us just to appreciate his cool handiwork here in the universe. :-)

    11. Re:Useless? by ichimunki · · Score: 1

      From your link: One billion digits of pi in less than 3 hours 48 minutes.

      I can download 640mb via BT in about an hour (or at least that's my experience with ISOs so far).

      --
      I do not have a signature
    12. Re:Useless? by digitect · · Score: 1
      There seems to be a similar obsession with finding a pattern in Pi as some have with finding messages from God in the Bible.

      Although you probably meant to imply something about hidden and cryptographic to that phrase, if you didn't, you might be surprised to know that believers understand the entire Bible to be a message from God in plain language. :)

      --
      There is no need to use a SlashDot sig for SEO...
    13. Re:Useless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm... infinite data set, infinate methods... hows about checking the deviation from a number set generated by that weird algorithm for making the 3.14-whatever-really-long-number? *grin*

      Mike (aka Anonymous Coward)

    14. Re:Useless? by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1
      having a CD with the first couple billion digits could be useful
      I find it useful as the combination to my luggage.
      --
      Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
    15. Re:Useless? by HighlyVerbal · · Score: 2

      Zocalo says: "keeping in mind that an infinite random data string will contain within itself every possible sequence" Two objections to Zocalo's reasoning: 1) the digits of pi are infinite and non-repeating but certainly not random - any digit is provably (in)correct 2) infinite non-repeating strings do NOT guarantee every possible sequence ... ie: 1.9119111911119 -- although if one mistakenly believed pi's digits to be random one might think the odds approached 100% of any given string appearing Fun thought of the day: if a infinite non-repeating string DID contain any given string, would they all be the same? We could then express irrationals by just naming the starting point on the "omni-string." Cheers!

    16. Re:Useless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the reference to the message from God in Pi was from "Contact" by Carl Sagan

      IIRC, the message in Pi was not from "God", but from whomever created the universe. Sagan was quite clear in his distancing of the creators from gods.

      In the end, hey man, it's just a story.

    17. Re:Useless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The believer will see God's signature, where the non-believer will note that an all-knowing, benevolent God would have only had to change the value of 1 by less than 5% to make pi a nice round number.

    18. Re:Useless? by essreenim · · Score: 1
      pi is just an infinite spiral represented as a number, designed to keep idiots amused. Nothing to see here, move along ...

  7. Alas, firewalls... by CAlworth1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While there is probably nothing useful that I could do with this file, there is also no way for me to be able to get it, even if I had something to do with it - One of the wonderful things about going college in the day and age where it is bad to share information is that bitTorrent is not allowed.... mirror of pi anyone?

    Having said that, it seems interesting to be asking, literally, for a mirror of the real world - as numbers go, this is pretty real.

    1. Re:Alas, firewalls... by wed128 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Penn state blocked Bittorrent, but not FTP. Go figure. Friggin Pirates. Anyway, Someone reply with a mirror!

    2. Re:Alas, firewalls... by Relic+of+the+Future · · Score: 1
      "...as numbers go, this is pretty real."

      Actually, more precisely, pi is irrational.

      --
      Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
    3. Re:Alas, firewalls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I go to college too. It's technically illegal to completely block ports from students, so there's pretty much a way around anything. At my college, it "sets the priority" of the default BT ports so they barely recieve everything. To remedy this, just download a nice BT client like BT++ (on SF), and set the ports to try a range of numbers. Mine works sweeping between 2000 and 4000. Good luck!

      Mmm.... Pi...

    4. Re:Alas, firewalls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Aha! The old "modulate the shields" technique!

    5. Re:Alas, firewalls... by tqft · · Score: 1

      I want an Extension for FF that will dance nicely with the download manager - drag and drop the .torr onto the download manager window and away it goes.

      No such luck - anyone ever here of this?

      PS: the moztorrent mailing list hasn't had a message in??? I assume they all went before the **AA's got wind of them

      --
      The Singularity is closer than you think
      Quant
  8. PI'th p0st? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    haha

  9. Unlikely! by JaxWeb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Be the first kid on your block to have the entire set!

    You're unlikely to be the first kid on the block to have the whole set of Pie digits...

    --
    - Jax
    1. Re:Unlikely! by A+Commentor · · Score: 1
      You're unlikely to be the first kid on the block to have the whole set of Pie digits...

      You never know, he might get the whole set of PIE digits, but he definitely wouldn't get the whole set of PI digits.
      --

      Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com

    2. Re:Unlikely! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I noticed that typo just after I subimitted, and I thought: Damn! Someone is gonna take the piss ;)

    3. Re:Unlikely! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're unlikely to be the first kid on the block to have the whole set of Pie digits...

      I've got a whole set of pie digits, ten of them, they're used to stuff the pie in the piehole.

  10. Regarding your signature... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why 2A? I think this would be better: 00101011 || ~(00101011)

    1. Re:Regarding your signature... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Convert it to decimal instead. Silly AC!

    2. Re:Regarding your signature... by Xypheri · · Score: 1

      shouldn't it be 00101010 ? after all that is the answer...

  11. Only the '3' was left off? by SpotBug · · Score: 0, Redundant


    The data is everything after the '3.' on one line, bzipped.
    That seems a little arbitrary. Surely they could also have left off the "14" that comes after the "3.". Or even, "1415962" etc.

    --
    cygnuhchur
    1. Re:Only the '3' was left off? by superstick58 · · Score: 1
      "1415962" ???

      I'm guessing this is a typo. Any geek would know that the first 7 digits after the three are 1415926. Actually, the 6 should be rounded up since the next digit would be 5 so the value is 3.1415927.

    2. Re:Only the '3' was left off? by renata.org · · Score: 1

      Or to 3.1416, as the 5 is followed by a 9. But it's funnier to work with more digits. I loved to scary my math teachers at high school approximating pi to 3.14159265...

    3. Re:Only the '3' was left off? by escher · · Score: 1

      In highschool I had it memorized to 3.1415926539. No idea why.

    4. Re:Only the '3' was left off? by renata.org · · Score: 1

      Today I know up to 21 digits - 3.141592653589793238462 - but just for geeky fun. :)

    5. Re:Only the '3' was left off? by fredrikj · · Score: 1

      I have approximated pi to 3.14159265358979 since high school. I know I should better, but I always forget what comes next.

    6. Re:Only the '3' was left off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your math teachers were scared by using a few extra digits for pi? Yikes.

    7. Re:Only the '3' was left off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the 6 should be rounded up

      No - it's 'the first n digits of pi' rather than 'pi to n digits'. It should stay as a 6.

    8. Re:Only the '3' was left off? by renata.org · · Score: 1

      Well, at least at MY school it was not so natural to find people who knew pi above 3.1416.

    9. Re:Only the '3' was left off? by The_Laughing_God · · Score: 1
      In highschool I had it memorized to 3.1415926539. No idea why.

      Probably because once you memorized your first incorrect digit going further would have been pointless. Pi is 3.141592653 5 ...

    10. Re:Only the '3' was left off? by escher · · Score: 1

      *bows head in shame*

    11. Re:Only the '3' was left off? by Oizoken · · Score: 0

      Actually, The rounding he uses is also correct.

      What you apply is a round to nearest, which is ok, but not statistically correct. IEEE uses round to odd/even, dependent on the base you use.

      If the base you use/2 = odd -> round to even and vice versa

      so he was calculating in base 10 (10/2=5=odd) so a round to even was more correct that your assumption.

      --
      Live, let _them_ die
    12. Re:Only the '3' was left off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The round-to-even/odd rule is for exact halves, like having to round 3.14159265000000. For 3.14159265358979 you instead round to the closest approximation.

  12. Not yet, I'll wait a few months... by Rahga · · Score: 4, Funny

    I figure the director's cut on DVD will include even more content.

    1. Re:Not yet, I'll wait a few months... by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      Yeah but that will be the crappy remastered version, where .1415 was considered not random enough and changed to .1482

    2. Re:Not yet, I'll wait a few months... by tantrum · · Score: 1
      I figure the director's cut on DVD will include even more content.

      nah, it will only show you the deleted scenes
  13. Shouldn't compress well by crow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At first, I was thrown off by the idea of compressing something like pi, as it shouldn't compress. The answer is that they're storing ASCII decimal digits, which require less than 4 bits per number, instead of 8. So you should get at least a 50% compression ratio, which would be 850 million bytes. But it's actually 3.something bits of information per byte, so they're able to fit it on a CD. I would be surprised if bzip could do any better than that.

    1. Re:Shouldn't compress well by slamb · · Score: 5, Interesting
      At first, I was thrown off by the idea of compressing something like pi, as it shouldn't compress. The answer is that they're storing ASCII decimal digits, which require less than 4 bits per number, instead of 8. So you should get at least a 50% compression ratio, which would be 850 million bytes. But it's actually 3.something bits of information per byte, so they're able to fit it on a CD. I would be surprised if bzip could do any better than that.

      I had the same thought. To put it in dirt-simple terms, they're only using 10 out of the 256 possible values in every byte, due to the ASCII encoding. This is how bzip2 is able to find any redundancy; pi itself has none.[*]

      So the best compression ratio (just compressed size/uncompressed size, right? so lower is better) is ln(10) / ln(256) = 41.5%. On a 700 MiB CD with no filesystem and nothing but pi, this means 700 * 2^20 / ln(256) * ln(10) = 1.77 billion digits (1767655840, with almost room for one more).

      You'd do better than bzip2 by just using fixed blocks of N bytes to represent M digits. (Larger choices would get you closer to that best ratio; lower choices would less work to decode each block, which might make seeking more practical and reduce memory requirements.) This would be superior to bzip2 in that it'd get somewhat better compression, use a lot less CPU time, and be seekable. You could encode and decode with a one-line Perl script.

      [*] - I suppose you could simply include the algorithm they used to generate the digits...but it'd take a long time to run, negating the whole point of putting pi on a CD.

    2. Re:Shouldn't compress well by savage_panda · · Score: 1

      I can think of an algorithm to compress it to an extreamly small percentage of original. Encode the information as 3 constants A:B:C where A is the starting index, B is the ending index, and C is a string of the mathmatical formula.. in this case "PI". Compression/Decompression will take awhile though. Maybe one day with quantum computers this could become a new compression scheme.

    3. Re:Shouldn't compress well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have developed a new compression algorithm. It expresses things as multiples of pi. I can fit the data on this CD on a floppy using my patent pending technique.

    4. Re:Shouldn't compress well by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would be surprised if bzip could do any better than that.

      Out of curiosity--

      Bzip could could only improve on that if it found some repeating data the stream, right? Any improvement beyond the 50% compression ratio would be pretty revolutionary...

    5. Re:Shouldn't compress well by arodland · · Score: 1

      Right... that was my first thought -- why not just use a compact encoding? It would be more easily seekable, anyway. But then I realized that 2^a != 10^b (for any integer a and b), so there's bound to be some loss. But of course it's not so bad anyway. Blocks of 10 bits pack three digits, with a waste of 0.034 bits = 0.34%. The optimum block size (for numbers under 4k) seems to be 2136 bytes, but if you go for 2048 bytes for CD-reading convenience, you can pack 616 digits. You waste almost a third of a bit in every 2048, but it's probably not worth the extra complexity to go from 99.76% efficiency to 99.999989% efficiency. :)

    6. Re:Shouldn't compress well by arodland · · Score: 1

      Whoops. Thinko there, forgot to convert bits to bytes. You can pack 616 digits into 2048 bits. There would, of course, have to be 8 of those to fill out a data-mode CD sector. If you wanted to use the whole sector as one block, it would hold 4932 digits, at an efficiency good enough that there's less than one bit wasted on the entire CD (and therefore you couldn't gain anything by using a different encoding anyway).

    7. Re:Shouldn't compress well by whydna · · Score: 2, Informative

      Assuming that the ASCII digits of pi are evenly distributed between '0' and '9', then you should have log2(10) = 3.322 bits per digit. At 3.322 bits per digit and 700MiB (5872025600 bits at 8 bits per byte) we should have about 1,767,655,841
      digits. Assuming that they're publishing exactly 1.7 Billion digits, they're within 3.8% of ideal compression, assuming an eactly even distribution of digits.

      Where it gets interesting is if there's NOT an even distribution of digits (which I don't believe is actually the case for digits of pi, but humor me). For example, assume that one digit, say 0, occurs 100 times more frequently than each of the other digits, with the remain 9 digis occuring evenly. If you use something like huffman encoding and represent '0' with 1 bit, and the remaining bits with an average of 4.22 bits per digit (based on my back-of-the-envelope huffman encoding), you'd wind up averaging 1.266 bits per digit (100/109 * 1 bit + 9/10 * 4.22 bits). Clearly, as the frequency of this digit approaches infinity, the average bits per digit approachs 1. With the scheme described above, any distribution with 0 occuring at least 27.95% of the time (and an even distribution of the remaining digits), this basic encoding will perform better than the ideal encoding described in the first paragraph. For the curious, my huffman encoded values in this scenario were (0, 1000, 1001, 1010, 1011, 1100, 1101, 11100, 11101, 1111) for 0-9 respectively.

      Obviously, the digits of pi are NOT distributed as disproportionately as I mentioned above, so a simple huffman encoding scheme is unlikely to produce better than ideal encoding. In fact, assuming an even distribution of digits, a back-of-the-envelope huffman encoding would yield encoded values of (1100, 1101, 1110, 1111, 000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101) for 0-9. With this, you'd average 3.4 bits/digit, which is only just over 5% away from ideal encoding (this also agrees with the estimate from above, especially since bzip2 uses huffman encoding).

      Of course, huffman encoding is not the only option. You could consider checking for multiple-digit combinations and determining the frequency of each combo. Or you could look at actual bit patterns, which is similar to run-length-encoding.

      All of this is discounting the fact that the digits of PI are computable, and thus encoding them can be completely avoided if you're willing to spend considerable resources calculating the values yourself. In this case you need 0 bits per digit (discounting the size of your "decompression program"). This is the most computationally intense option, but yields the most optimal compression ratio.

    8. Re:Shouldn't compress well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Where it gets interesting is if there's NOT an even distribution of digits (which I don't believe is actually the case for digits of pi, but humor me)

      In fact, it's definitely not the case for pi.

      Clearly, as the frequency of this digit approaches infinity, the average bits per digit approachs 1.

      You're close, but it's even better than that: as the probability of a given digit being 0 approaches 1, the average bits per digit approaches 0. (If you already know what the bit is, there's no need to write it out.) You'd realize this possibility by using Huffman encoding and one of your later suggestions - using multiple-digit combos. If the probability of a digit being 0 is near-1, the probability of a sequence being all 0s is, too. Thus, it would be realistic to achieve an average number of bits per digit of less than 1.

    9. Re:Shouldn't compress well by whydna · · Score: 1

      You are correct. I guess my brain slipped out of "statistics mode" into "calculus mode"... I should have said "as the frequency approaches 1" ... not "infinity".

      It's also worthwhile to note that I stated that in the case where there's 100 '0' digits and the '0' digit is represented by 1-bit, the average bits/digit was 4.22. I was incorrect. This value should have been 1.266 bits per digit in this case. Again, my huffman values are (0, 1000, 1001, 1010, 1011, 1100, 1101, 11100, 11101, 1111) for 0-9, respectivly. The 1.266 bits per digit value is computed as follows:

      (100 digits* 1 bit/digit) + (1 occurance of each digit * 38 bits for these digits/occurance) = 138 bits.

      138 bits / 109 occurances = 1.266 bits per digit

      The 4.22 bits/digit figure came from the 38 bits for digits 0-9 divided by 9 digits = 4.22. My mistake.

      When I stated that "any distribution with 0 occuring at least 27.95% of the time ... will perform better than the ideal encoding", I computed that as follows (assume P0 is the probabilty of the digit '0'):

      (P0 x 1) + ((1-P0) * 4.22) = 0.2795

      What's really interesting, and possibly indicative of a flaw in my math, is that if you perform a huffman encoding in which '0' occurs 30% of the time (just good first approximation of 27.95%), you'll get values these values(00, 0100, 0101, 0110, 0111, 100, 101, 1100, 1101, 111) for 0-9, respectively. Notice that '0' is being represented by a two digit binary value instead of a 1 digit value in my previous example. This works out to 4.06 bits/digit (which makes since, given the lower distribution of '0' digits).

      Doing the math as above, you'll find that this is at least as good as ideal any time '0' is present more than 20.48% of the time (since the non-'0' values are smaller, on average, in this scenario, we can have more of them).

      Overall, (still assuming an even distribution of non-'0' digits), you're better off using a two-bit representation of '0' when '0' occurs between 20.48% and 35.90% of the time, using a one-bit representation will be better than ideal when '0' occurs 27.95% of the time, but will only be better than the two-bit '0' when it occurs more than 35.90% of the time. Anything less that 20.48% (assuming evenly distributed non-'0' digits), will best be represented with using the ideal 3.32 bits per digit, as described originally.

      Assuming that my huffman encoding and my math is correct, you'll get 1-bit digits any time the probability of '0' is strictly greater than 33%. Which is unfortunate, since a 2-bit digit is more optimal at the 33% occurance rate.

      So, while huffman encoding is extremely efficient for a problem of this scope, it's not always optimal. Any Huffman experts care to chime in here?

    10. Re:Shouldn't compress well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      redundancy != compressibility.

    11. Re:Shouldn't compress well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, and then there's all that overburn capacity!

    12. Re:Shouldn't compress well by dolmen.fr · · Score: 1

      Pi would contain on one bit if expressed in base Pi.

      But the data of this CD could not contain on a floppy because it NOT exactly pi but only the first 1.7 billion of digits.

    13. Re:Shouldn't compress well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it would hold 4932 digits, at an efficiency good enough that there's less than one bit wasted on the entire CD

      Encoding 4932 digits theoretically requires 2047.968671 bytes. You're losing 0.25 bit for each block of 4932 digits. For a total of 1.7e9/4932*0.25 = about 86,000 lost bits.

      Where did you learn to do math?

  14. Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    If that torrent gets past 5 seeders, I will EAT A BRICK.
    How about just linking to the software included on the cd and not the whole cd proper?
    I'll say this: the BAD thing about BitTorrent is not the fact that 80% of its use is illegal, rather that it lowers the barrier of entry to hosting huge (and incidentally useless, in this case) files from random hole-in-the-wall ISPs.

    I'll take back everything I said if that's a huge torrent of porn disguised as a PI cd.

    1. Re:Wow. by renata.org · · Score: 1

      It would be funnier to share a torrent named something like teen_sex_porn with 1.7 billion digits of pi inside.

    2. Re:Wow. by H0ek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Less than two hours after the posting of the article to the public it's hit 6 seeders. Let me present to you your BRICK.

      This from a site on a 500MHz P3 sitting on a little cable modem on a public utility style ISP providing 100KB/s upload speed. I love BitTorrent.

      --
      H0ek
      Think you're smart? Prove you've got brains!
    3. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a tasty brick. Of cocaine.

    4. Re:Wow. by Alsee · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'll take back everything I said if that's a huge torrent of porn disguised as a PI cd.

      Dude! 1.7 BILLION digits of Pi *is* geek porn.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    5. Re:Wow. by Antonymous+Flower · · Score: 1

      Dude! 1.7 BILLION digits of Pi *is* geek porn.


      or perhaps gReek porn...

  15. Mathematical Music by Marillion · · Score: 4, Funny

    Burn it as an audio CD. The static will still sound better than most of the recently released music.

    --
    This is a boring sig
    1. Re:Mathematical Music by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      especially brittney spears.

    2. Re:Mathematical Music by Kris_J · · Score: 1

      I was going to put the human genome and Pi onto my iPod, but that would mean that I'd have to delete my collection of [insert reference to crap pop music here]...

    3. Re:Mathematical Music by buswolley · · Score: 1

      and more intersting than the crap I read here, and incidentally, more interesting than what I am writing now.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    4. Re:Mathematical Music by Exaton · · Score: 1

      On that note (oops, pun not intended), we have musical pi.

  16. Who uses PI? by vettemph · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I use pie all the time in an Engineering lab. typically out to 3 or 4 decimals. Does anyone NEED to use PI to a greater level of accuracy? If so, what application and how many decimal places do you require?

    --
    The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
    1. Re:Who uses PI? by david+duncan+scott · · Score: 1

      I recall reading somewhere that one could navigate to Alpha Centauri (or something equally outrageous) with 10-digit precision for PI.

      --

      This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander

    2. Re:Who uses PI? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Our microscopic image processing software uses pi to considerable precision. This is, I admit, a pretty specialized application.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:Who uses PI? by Retric · · Score: 1

      I rember using it in an astonomy program it was usefull to have the first 12 digits of PI. Then again they want acuarcay out to +/- 1/360/60/60/1000 milli arc seconds and all that.

    4. Re:Who uses PI? by Scott+Ransom · · Score: 1

      I do billion-point 1-D FFTs in order to search for very weak pulsars in radio data. And since I need to know the exact phase of each Fourier amplitude (in order to sum the harmonics together for optimal sensitivity to "sharp" pulsar profiles) I need at least double-precision-level (around 15 digits) of pi in order to keep floating-point errors in the trig computations from killing me.

    5. Re:Who uses PI? by uler · · Score: 1

      I need 50 billion digits. For my pleasure.

    6. Re:Who uses PI? by EduardoTheBastard · · Score: 1
      Rather than answer this question, I'll point out a C abuse (or misunderstanding). Unfortunately I have seen this more than once.

      #define PI 3.14159265358979323f

      Note the "f" on the end. You will probably only get the first six or seven decimal digits. The rest is gravy for the compiler to throw away.

    7. Re:Who uses PI? by Saikiran · · Score: 0

      4-decimal places !! that's it !!

      Like someone on the group mentioned, it makes a huge difference in codes using the FFT. I'm an engineering grad student working on Computational Physics. The difference between using a 4-decimal-place Pi value and probably a 15-decimal place Pi value is in the amount of error you generate when you do an FFT, followed by an inverse-FFT. With 4-decimal places, I guess your errors are of the order of 1e-5 or so as compared to machine-precision when you use about 15 decimal places. If you run some kind of a simulation, within a bunch of FFT, inverse-FFT cycles, the entire data would be corrupted if the value of Pi is not good enough.

      Just my 2c, and yes - I've done that in the past :)

    8. Re:Who uses PI? by vettemph · · Score: 1

      Thanks, but I have no idea how many decimal places qualify as "considerable". I'm less interested in who and more interested in how many decimal places are "just enough" to get the job done.

      --
      The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
    9. Re:Who uses PI? by vettemph · · Score: 1

      > I need 50 billion digits. For my pleasure.

      I only need 4 digits and a thumb.

      --
      The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
    10. Re:Who uses PI? by vettemph · · Score: 1

      > 4 decimal places !! that's it !!
      I guess it depends on your line of work. For me it is gear trains, Tach pulses and Rubber coated drive wheels. For instance, printers and bill acceptors. We need to know the distance an object has traversed, or its length, given a number of tach pulses collect while the object passes a sensor. This is the only time I need to use Pi.

      --
      The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
    11. Re:Who uses PI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taking pi out to 100 places does you no good if the other numbers you are using are only good to two decimal places. for example

      3.1415926535857 * 2.0 = 6.283...

      in real life 2.0 isnt 2.0, it could be anything from 2.00 to 2.01, +/- the uncertainty of the stick we used to measure 2. So knowing pi past two decimel places gains you no accuracy whatsoever and should get truncated after the calculation is complete.

      All you need is pi to N places, where N is the number of places in the other numbers used in the calculation. The accuracy of your calculation is a function of the number you are least sure about (the most inaccurate number).

      -philski-

    12. Re:Who uses PI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2.00 to 2.09, rather.

    13. Re:Who uses PI? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      The last time I worked on that code, which was a while ago, we were using ~20 digits after the decimal. It may be more now.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    14. Re:Who uses PI? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Taking pi out to 100 places does you no good if the other numbers you are using are only good to two decimal places.

      Very true, but the image data is also quite precise. We're not wasting bits, I can assure you. ;)

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    15. Re:Who uses PI? by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      I hate to be the one to break this to you, but your thumb is digital.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    16. Re:Who uses PI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One statement I've seen repeated in a few places is that 39 decimal places of pi are sufficient to calculate the circumference of a circle with the diameter of the observable universe, accurate to within the diameter of a proton.

    17. Re:Who uses PI? by vettemph · · Score: 1

      They didn't have digital thumbs in my day, Mine are analog. :)

      --
      The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
    18. Re:Who uses PI? by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      I guess that qualifies, since analog thumbs still count.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  17. Woo Hoo! by forty-2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now I can finally find my phone number in pi.

    --
    never drink kool-aid from a big vat
    1. Re:Woo Hoo! by stienman · · Score: 3, Informative

      You could do that before:
      PI Phone Number Search Engine

      -Adam

    2. Re:Woo Hoo! by Xaroth · · Score: 1

      Cute! 8675309 appears at a 7-digit point, meaning it can be readily translated into another phone number!

      Someone ring Tommy TuTone and tell them to make "920-2591" right away!

    3. Re:Woo Hoo! by SW6 · · Score: 1
      PI Phone Number Search Engine

      A nice US-centric touch: it assumes all phone numbers have seven digits in them. It's all five and six digit numbers round here in 01527...

    4. Re:Woo Hoo! by thrash242 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's US-centric, which is why it's done by a Canadian on a Canadian site.

      If you don't like it, right your own version. The source is freely available.

    5. Re:Woo Hoo! by tepples · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's US-centric, which is why it's done by a Canadian on a Canadian site.

      With respect to telephone numbers, Canada is the fifty-first state, as USA and Canada are in the same numbering space. NANPA, whose name is the Toki Pona word for "number", is the name of an agency run by NeuStar that administers the area codes used for telephone numbers in Anglo-Francophone North America.

  18. The rest of the 4.2 billion? by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 0

    Inside the ISO there's links to the source of the data, in case you want the rest of the 4.2 billion digits available.

    Does their source stop working after 4.2 billion digits, or did I misunderstand something about pi?

    --

    There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    1. Re:The rest of the 4.2 billion? by alyosha1 · · Score: 1

      Apparently pi has just become rational...

    2. Re:The rest of the 4.2 billion? by renata.org · · Score: 1

      Probably this is the largest number of digits they have reached by now...

    3. Re:The rest of the 4.2 billion? by Orthanc_duo · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that they didn't caclulate it, but rather downloaded the first 1.7 digits from some online data source.

      By link to the source, they don't mean the source vode, but rather the data source

  19. Just do what i do by rmiller021 · · Score: 0

    Set up a computer at home, and use it to download torrents remotely. Assuming the don't block SSH.

    --
    What happened to my robot, I was promised a robot.
  20. 700 Mb? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    This will save you a 700 Mb download:
    perl -e 'for($|++,$_++,$a++;;$,+=$a/$_,$_++,$a*=-1,$_++){p rintf"%.16f\n",$,*4}'
    Might take a while to get your 1.7 billion digits though...
    1. Re:700 Mb? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is too slow. Use something more efficient like this freakass url has below.

      http://3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716 93993751058209.maxg.org/pi.gz

  21. Go to pi.com! ;-) by xmas2003 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    http://3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716 9399375105820974944592.com/ which is the longest you can do in DNS currently ...

    --
    Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
  22. Uncountable versus countable infinities by benhocking · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Better yet, since pi only contains a countable number of infinite digits, and there are uncountably infinite numbers of problems (see any decent book on theory of computing), the digits of pi most likely solve an infinite number of problems. Of course, since we can only describe a finite number of problems (in a finite amount of time), there are far fewer of these. The digits of pi do solve, for example, the problem of the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. Of course, the question we're really looking at is what are the digits telling us in some non-geometrical sense (presumably), and, better yet, is there anything they're telling us that is independent of the number base (e.g., decimal vs. binary vs. trinary)? Of course, your argument still holds.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
  23. I've got a bunch of digits of pi by Xtifr · · Score: 4, Funny

    Since pi is infinite and irrational, I'm pretty sure that the data on every CD I own appears somewhere in pi. So, can I distribute these too? :)

    1. Re:I've got a bunch of digits of pi by mdielmann · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure that the data on every CD I own appears somewhere in pi.

      Oh great, just what I need. Now every time I see a circle, I'll be reminded that pi contains Britney Spears' Greatest Hits. Bastard.

      On the plus side, it also contains every snide remark made about her. Including this one.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    2. Re:I've got a bunch of digits of pi by DustMagnet · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Since pi is infinite and irrational, I'm pretty sure that the data on every CD I own appears somewhere in pi. So, can I distribute these too? :)

      Cute concept.

      Of course you mean that the number of digits in pi is infinite. We both know pi isn't infinite since it's greater than three and less than four. Of course all irrational numbers have an infinite number of digits, so it works better to say, "Since pi is irrational, etc".

      While I don't know about pi, an irrational number does not have to contain every combination of digits. For example, take this irrational number:
      3.131131113111131111131111113111111311111113...
      While irrational, it doesn't match any of your CDs. At least, I hope it doesn't.

      --
      'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
    3. Re:I've got a bunch of digits of pi by NonSequor · · Score: 1

      Don't think that's true for pi. It might be true for a normal number. You can find a normal number by picking a random point on a ruler and measuring its location to an infinite accuracy. Good luck on achieving the infinite accuracy bit though.

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
    4. Re:I've got a bunch of digits of pi by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone has proven that Pi is a normal number, but I believe it's widely thought to be normal. More information available here.

      --
      AccountKiller
    5. Re:I've got a bunch of digits of pi by Jack+Schitt · · Score: 1

      Although if you take that number (3.131131113111131111131111113111111311111113) and create a cd the uses a series of digits that represent an offset from the decimal of specified number above, you could theoretically use a 1 as a binary bit = 1 and a three as a binary bit = 0 and reconstruct some contents for said cd... In other words, 1255298 would be equal to 1000001 based on the offset of the digits from the decimal in the above number. As we all know, 1000001 = 65 = 'A'. But then you're talking about a 1 to 8 expansion ratio.

      w00t I just invented a new encryption system... a week one, but still.

      Wait a sec... this is no longer on topic... please disregard this post.

      --
      This message brought to you by Jack Schitt's Previously Shat Shit
    6. Re:I've got a bunch of digits of pi by brsmith4 · · Score: 1

      Notice the pattern of the numbers in the statement above. Its not random. There is no way you'd account for the data on your cd's unless the data on the cd's somehow magically conformed to that pattern.

      Booya

    7. Re:I've got a bunch of digits of pi by sjpadbury · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that mean that any piece of code is actually a sequence of digits of pi, therefore nothing is copywritable since you can prove prior art as being a randomly starting sequence from pi?

      --
      We're all full up on Crazy here...
    8. Re:I've got a bunch of digits of pi by chainsaw1 · · Score: 1

      This brought up an intereting question in my brain that hopefully someone inclined in math can help. While you can have a certain set of digits repeat in an irrational number, it appears that changing the base destroys the pattern. The clever bit I was wondering about is if you could find a (whole number) base that you could use to represent a random decimal string as a repeating pattern.

      Possible issue:
      To prove for sure, you'd need the entire string. But possibly you could do the calculation of pi in a suspected base to know for sure.

      Also, what is the calculation typically entered to give the value of pi? 7/2=? sqrt(2)^3?

      --
      - Sig
    9. Re:I've got a bunch of digits of pi by cortana · · Score: 1

      Give us the offset of your data and then we'll talk.

  24. Awesome, dude by benhocking · · Score: 1

    Even more precisely, pi is transcendental.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
  25. MD5 Checksum? by sirwnstn · · Score: 1

    Holy smokes! I wonder if they have the checksum too. Who knows if there'll be errors after download. ;)

  26. 1.7 billion digits of pi on a CD, WITH A BONUS! by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 4, Funny

    1.7 billion digits of pi on a CD.

    And if you have trouble visualizing what Pi calculated to 1.7billion digits, the CD conveniently comes in the shape of a near-perfect circle for reference.

  27. Torrent by bcmm · · Score: 4, Funny

    As this is actually an article about a torrent, I feel that it is legitimate and on-topic to say:
    Please stop leaching. You should open at least port 6881 for incoming connections, and leave your bittorrent client open until you have uploaded at least as much as you have downloaded. It's only fair.
    Thank you.

    (I assume that you are all actually downloading this and not just laughing about it, right?)

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    1. Re:Torrent by gothzilla · · Score: 1

      As of 1:42 CST, I am connected to 26 seeders and 28 peers. I believe we're seeing the opposite of the slashdot effect.

    2. Re:Torrent by SanLouBlues · · Score: 1

      But even if one leaches, any contribution is more than would have happened without BitTorrent. Therefore, if you have uploaded at all, you have helped. It's not like the old ftp sites where you had to upload a certain amount to download something, it's more like every little bit matters and its nice if people leave them open, but it's not required.

    3. Re:Torrent by bcmm · · Score: 1

      Except that you have prevented others using the seeders bandwidth. You inevitably take that much upload bandwidth out of the system.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    4. Re:Torrent by bcmm · · Score: 1

      Why is this +5, Funny? I don't understand...

      In case you're wondering, I did download this...

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  28. Hidden messages by jsveiga · · Score: 2, Informative

    If all you want to do is search for mystic stuff inside the number, you don't need the CD with its measly 1.7bi digits.

    Save your bandwidth and just go here to search within 4bi digits.

    1. Re:Hidden messages by jsveiga · · Score: 1

      ouch. it's 4billion BINARY digits!

  29. 4.2 billion? Try 1.24 trillion... by jangobongo · · Score: 1
    Wikipedia has this bit of trivia:
    • As of 2003, [Yasumasa] Kanada held the world record calculating the number of digits in the decimal expansion of pi - exactly 1.2411 trillion digits. The calculation took more than 600 hours on a Hitachi SR8000 supercomputer.
    600 hours = 25 days!
    --

    Sig cancelled due to lack of interest
    1. Re:4.2 billion? Try 1.24 trillion... by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 1

      When I was a first year undergrad back in the Old Stone Age (1978), the record for computing pi stood at 1001250 digits. They used a CDC 7600 computer. No idea how long it took. Probably a while.

      The computer I'm typing this on now (far from state of the art: Pentium III, 733 MHz) just did it in under a minute, while I was reading Slashdot. How times have changed...

      ...laura

  30. literary works by powdered+toast+dude · · Score: 1
    I wonder how closely pi models the proverbial "infinite number of moneys".

    $0.02,
    ptd

    --
    I'm an animal lover -- they're delicious!
  31. Expansion Pack by MankyD · · Score: 3, Funny

    The '3' will be included in the expansion pack, slated for release in early 2006.

    --
    -dave
    http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
  32. Compressing Pi by rdwald · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The data is everything after the '3.' on one line, bzipped.

    So, in order to reduce the space on the CD, they bzipped it? I could see that helping for the search code, etc., but for pi itself, isn't it impossible to represent it in less space than it already takes without actually using a mathematical formula which defines pi? I would think the only way to actually save space would be to use some non-ASCII encoding scheme such that each byte could hold two digits, not one. Or encode it in hexadecimal, and use five bits per digit.

    1. Re:Compressing Pi by MankyD · · Score: 2, Informative

      If each digit is was stored as ascii, you could use a Huffman code (the basic zip encoding) to shrink it down. This returns a result much like you suggested. If for those not familiar with Huffman Codes, I'll give a quick and dirty summary:

      Say each char takes 8 bytes but, in this case, you're only using 10 chars, so you don't need 8 bytes to represent it all. Huffman codes do a quick count of character frequencies and create tree of shorter bit representations for each character. Characters that have a higher frequence (say the number 0 occurred a lot) are given a shorter code. A tree is used to mantain uniqueness so that no ambiguity occurs. For instance:

      0 - 0
      1 - 100
      2 - 101
      3 - 11000
      4 - 11001
      5 - 11010
      6 - 11011
      7 - 11100
      8 - 11101
      9 - 11110

      If I give you the bits "011000101" you can translate that to "0 - 3 - 2". Use google for those who want to learn more.

      --
      -dave
      http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
    2. Re:Compressing Pi by LuckyStarr · · Score: 1

      Of course you can compress it. Only a few bits of ASCII are used as Pi only consists of digits.

      --
      Meme of the day: I browse "Disable Sigs: Checked". So should you.
    3. Re:Compressing Pi by Jacked · · Score: 1
      I would think the only way to actually save space would be to use some non-ASCII encoding scheme

      Such as bzip?

    4. Re:Compressing Pi by enosys · · Score: 1

      Look at the statistics, in particular look at single digit frequencies. You can't compress Pi that way.

    5. Re:Compressing Pi by jazman · · Score: 1

      That's 4.2 bits per digit on average, slightly worse than BCD "compression" (storing it as 0x14, 0x15, 0x92, 0x65, 0x35,...)

    6. Re:Compressing Pi by MankyD · · Score: 1

      Right, not giving the lookup table I used. But it would still give you a tree that would use less bits per number (i.e. 4 bits [0-16] instead of 8)

      --
      -dave
      http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
    7. Re:Compressing Pi by MankyD · · Score: 1

      I just gave that as an example. Assuming every digit occurs with the same frequency (which I'm pretty sure it does, or near it) you'd end up with a bunch of 4 bit codes for each digit, instead of 8 - much like the BCD compression you suggest.

      --
      -dave
      http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
  33. All on one CD by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Why only 1.7B digits? You can fit all the digits on one CD, without even writing to the disc: just divide the circumference of the CD by its diameter! That's (theoretically) infinite compression, better than bzip2.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:All on one CD by shrikel · · Score: 1

      In theory, yes. But unless you can find a perfectly circular CD, then even your ideally accurate measurements will be off by a large factor.

      --
      Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
    2. Re:All on one CD by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Which raises the question of how they compute it in the first place. I've always wondered that. The only way that I've seen that makes sense is the ever-shrinking triangle method, where successively smaller triangles are used to compute estimates of the value of pi.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    3. Re:All on one CD by digitalhermit · · Score: 1

      This is similar (and similarly flawed) to the following riddle:

      Ford Prefect, the space alien, arrived on Earth one day. Intrigued by the blandness of Earth, he wanted to document the sum total of mankinds knowledge for the amusement of his friends back home. The only problem was that, though ridiculously tiny by galactic standards, humans had created enough bad fiction that the databanks on Ford Prefect's ship would be unable to carry it back. Ford thought for a moment, then found a solution: He would get a gold rod. The ratio of its length to width would generate a fractional number, in much the same way that 355/113 would give digits of Pi. When converted to decimal he could store all of mankind's knowledge.

      So what's wrong with this idea?

      Answer: Unless you had infinitely precise material, which is impossible, you'd never have the "resolution" to get the proper ratios.

    4. Re:All on one CD by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Well, you don't even need the CD. The laser in the CD-ROM drive makes a wave that varies by SIN(distance), the two components of which are directly proportional by a factor of pi. I'd expect that to be more precisely accurate than 1.7B digits.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:All on one CD by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      What's wrong is that Prefect used the expensive, and malleable, gold rod, rather than the cheaply-synthesized, stable zirconium crystal. Instead of treacherous analog measurements, he'd have a pair of digital counters by atomic lattice cell units to generate an irrational number, and its scale could represent the index to the last significant digit in the code. Oh, and everyone knows that even the cheapest flivvers from Ursa Minor have databanks in the GLoC (Giga Libraries of Congress).

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  34. Algorithm by FullMetalAlchemist · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does anyone have a link to the algorithm where one can calculate the digits of pi at any given position without knowing the result from the preceding digits?

    1. Re:Algorithm by JaxWeb · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      - Jax
    2. Re:Algorithm by FullMetalAlchemist · · Score: 1

      Sweet, thanks a lot.

  35. messages in pi by waynegoode · · Score: 1

    The concept of a message in pi is part of the plot of "Contact", a novel by Carl Sagan about SETI receiving a signal from an extraterrestrial intelligence. The aliens say that someone/something embedded a message in pi. The questions brought up by this are of course: Who? and How?

  36. And other people phone numbers too by Chemisor · · Score: 1

    Guy: so, what's your number?
    Girl: It's in Pi.
    Guy: but I don't know your name to do the checksum!
    Girl: It's in Pi too.

  37. You're a genius! by FiloEleven · · Score: 3, Funny

    Since nothing is going horribly wrong at work today, I took your advice. You will not believe what is encoded in the sequence!

    Most of it is awful noise, but after the first two or three minutes it ceases being pure white noise and you get some interesting texture. At this point, I turned up the volume a bit and kept surfing Slashdot. Until my mind was blown.

    Right around 7 minutes 6 seconds into the track, the textures resolve into a whispery voice. I know this sounds nuts, and I wouldn't believe it either if I hadn't heard it myself. There's still a lot of fuzz, but ifyou listen carefully you can make out some of what it says:

    "...four simultaneous [unintelligible] four hour days...[unintelligible]...rotation of the earth"
    "ineffable truth and wisdom"
    "four corner [unintelligible] metamorphic human"

    This stuff goes on and on, but I need to clean up the audio to understand everything! Does anyone have recommendations for heuristic filtering software? This is absolutely amazing. I wonder what it all means?

    1. Re:You're a genius! by mc_barron · · Score: 1

      Did someone else *actually* burn it to a CD and listen...is that even possible? Would it be white noise? What do you need to do to create a track that is recognized as an audio track from pure bits?

    2. Re:You're a genius! by Russ+Steffen · · Score: 1

      Do you know what this means? Someone better tell Mr. TimeCube right now ...

    3. Re:You're a genius! by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      Careful there big fella. As we all know, Ignoring Cubium indicts you evil.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    4. Re:You're a genius! by M1FCJ · · Score: 1
      easiest way to do is cat pi > /dev/dsp.

      Enjoy the noise.

    5. Re:You're a genius! by Marillion · · Score: 1
      The cdrecord program has an option (-audio) to force audio mastering audio tracks from a file. It presumes the file is already 44100KHz, 16bit stereo data.

      The result would most likely be somewhat noisy, but probably not white noise. Since the data is ASCII numbers, the MSB of each channel never uses more than 10% of the total harmonic range. It never goes negative either, which might damage some poorly designed amplifiers or speakers.

      --
      This is a boring sig
  38. Here's a mirror by Smallpond · · Score: 1

    4/1 - 4/3 + 4/5 - 4/7 ...

  39. Applicable poem by H0ek · · Score: 2, Informative

    The nifty thing about sharing links like this is you get fun mail, like this poem from a friend:

    Now I will a rhyme construct
    By chosen words the youth instruct
    Cunningly devised endeavour
    Con it and remember ever
    Widths in circle, here you see
    Sketched out in strange obscurity

    I might just have to memorize it. ;-)

    --
    H0ek
    Think you're smart? Prove you've got brains!
    1. Re:Applicable poem by Strolls · · Score: 1
      I remember my father reciting a similar poem when I was a kid. I don't remember the rest, but it started:

      Now I give a rhyme excelling,
      in sacred truth and rigid spelling.

  40. "because grep just didn't cut it this time" by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

    The first one to ask for a fork gets Pi in his face.

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  41. Copyright Infringement by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    "No judge, that really wasnt a song i was trading, that was just a snapshot of a part of pi.. i love math"

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  42. Trivial... by Shazow · · Score: 1

    The 3 is trivial. The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.

    - shazow

  43. wow! by Sean+Johnson · · Score: 1

    A slashdot main link that was already a bittorrent.....
    I am hereby officially flabbergasted!

    --
    >>>>>> Chewie, take the professor in the back and plug him into the hyperdrive.
  44. PI for testing CPU logic by Schwarzchild · · Score: 1

    IIRC, Intel has used the billions of digits of PI to test their hardware for errors. So yeah...a billion digits of PI could be useful.

    --

    "sweet dreams are made of this..."

  45. PI server by JVolkman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716 9399375105820974944592.jp
    I believe this server keeps sending digits of PI indefinitely (most likely using the fun Nth-digit-of-PI formula). It's already a slow site, and will probably be slashdotted quickly. (This is not a dupe of the .com posted earlier)

  46. CD? Bah by hcdejong · · Score: 1

    I want 1.7 billion digits of Pi on the wall .

  47. Pi by billcopc · · Score: 1

    11:15, restate my assumptions: 1. Mathematics is the language of nature. 2. Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers. 3. If you graph these numbers, patterns emerge. Therefore: There are patterns everywhere in nature.

    Now where's my Ming Mecca chip goddamnit ?

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  48. Good data set for staganography by dolmen.fr · · Score: 1

    There seems to be a similar obsession with finding a pattern in Pi as some have with finding messages from God in the Bible.

    Hidding your own data in Pi digits with steganography may be a good trick. Who will bother a CD labeled "1.7 billion of Pi digits"?

    In fact, who will recompute Pi to check that this CD really contains bare Pi digits ?

  49. heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mmmm pi

  50. Another name for this CD... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Coaster"

  51. check for base...and for jokes by Bluedove · · Score: 1

    While I don't know about pi, an irrational number does not have to contain every combination of digits. For example, take this irrational number: 3.131131113111131111131111113111111311111113...

    Hmmm....it doesn't contain them in base 10. Look at it again in base 13. Nobody makes jokes in base 13.

    Oh sorry, wrong article.

    ps. Also see Voltaire: "God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."

    1. Re:check for base...and for jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3.192130AB59C9A80A75B1A00A8B9860C29819657737064A?

  52. eDonkey don't lie by tepples · · Score: 1

    "I love donkey, donkey don't lie, I love donkey almost much as PI"

    For those few people who can get eMule/MLDonkey to work better than BT, is anybody sharing this file on eDonkey?

  53. Geekgirl by Stanistani · · Score: 1

    ...and I wrote her a poem...

    3.14159
    Won't you be my Valentine?

  54. Cipher by hicksw · · Score: 1

    What an excellent one time strip!