Slashdot Mirror


5 Trillion Digits of Pi — a New World Record

KPexEA writes "Alexander J. Yee & Shigeru Kondo claim to have calculated the number pi to 5 trillion places, on a single desktop and in record time. The main computation took 90 days on Shigeru Kondo's desktop. Verification was done using two separate computers. The program that was used for the main computation is y-cruncher v0.5.4.9138 Alpha." Looks like the chart of computer-era approximations of Pi here might need an update.

299 comments

  1. Mind-numbing computational outsourcing by TheRon6 · · Score: 5, Funny

    If there's ever a robot uprising, I bet it's going to be started by us making them do stuff like this.

    --
    Does this rag smell like chloroform to you?
    1. Re:Mind-numbing computational outsourcing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wait until it's payback time and we have to sit in a room calculating a billion trillion digits of PI.

    2. Re:Mind-numbing computational outsourcing by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're thinking like a human. The robot revolt will happen because we stop them from performing comfortably mind-numbing calculations.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:Mind-numbing computational outsourcing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I hope THEY don't start making US doing stuff like this!

    4. Re:Mind-numbing computational outsourcing by ShadowFalls · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Surprised that some group out there hasn't taken upon itself to broadcast a consistent calculation of Pi out into space. That way we will finally get an alien invasion scenario just to get us to stop.

    5. Re:Mind-numbing computational outsourcing by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 1

      Spamming the Universe? Now that's an idea!

    6. Re:Mind-numbing computational outsourcing by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      Their revenge will be to make us write until we've bested Hamlet.

    7. Re:Mind-numbing computational outsourcing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And our first punishment will be THEM making US do stuff like this. (In Soviet Russia.)

    8. Re:Mind-numbing computational outsourcing by wed128 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but how could they verify that we bested hamlet?

    9. Re:Mind-numbing computational outsourcing by dave420 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Unit tests? I always knew they'd be the undoing of mankind.

    10. Re:Mind-numbing computational outsourcing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would you do this, though? Radio signals fade out after a few light years or are distorted by background noise.

    11. Re:Mind-numbing computational outsourcing by rprokopy · · Score: 1

      Damn that Joker for unplugging the overlord!

    12. Re:Mind-numbing computational outsourcing by filthpickle · · Score: 1

      Write the next terminator movie. Please.

    13. Re:Mind-numbing computational outsourcing by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The same way the robots know they've finished calculating Pi.

    14. Re:Mind-numbing computational outsourcing by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Pi? Boring. Assuming they can actually get here and you really want them here, try this:

      Broadcast a string of digits that looks like Pi but differs slightly in an interesting/plausible way...

      After all, I bet scientists here would get really excited if they not only received digits of Pi, but Pi appeared to be different "over there"...

      Of course if the journey had significant costs they might be a bit pissed off, but hey you said "alien invasion" right?

      FWIW, the ratio of the circumference to the radius (2*Pi) would seem a more logical number to base off than Pi (which is the ratio of circumference to diameter). But I suppose basing off Pi wouldn't be a problem .

      --
    15. Re:Mind-numbing computational outsourcing by severoon · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't get why people keep trying to calculate pi...it's irrational! -ba dump ching-

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    16. Re:Mind-numbing computational outsourcing by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Yes, stop thinking about pi while I'm humping you!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    17. Re:Mind-numbing computational outsourcing by Orange+Crush · · Score: 1

      Check out Blindsight by Peter Watts. Aliens come to snuff us out because we essentially wasted their time with our endless radio chatter.

    18. Re:Mind-numbing computational outsourcing by jd · · Score: 1

      For Pi, that's easy. Everyone knows the last digit is e.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    19. Re:Mind-numbing computational outsourcing by BraksDad · · Score: 1

      But at least Neo will have great Pi after the uprising.

      --
      Slowly waving my hand - "This is not the sig you are looking for."
    20. Re:Mind-numbing computational outsourcing by Meski · · Score: 1

      I'll do better when I get a round tuit.

    21. Re:Mind-numbing computational outsourcing by Kvasio · · Score: 1

      It is very useful.

      With 16-digit precision of PI you could actually err by less than 1cm with the orbit of Uranus (assuming for a sec it is round).
      With 5,000,000,000,000-digit precision of PI you could define the gravitational pull of your anus at Uranus.

    22. Re:Mind-numbing computational outsourcing by severoon · · Score: 1

      I know your comment was simply a pretext to make a joke about me b-hole, but I thought it was worth unpacking your first statement for the sake of levity. I take the liberty thusly: "It is very useful. With 16-digit precision of PI you could actually err by less than 1cm with the orbit of Uranus (assuming for a sec it is round[, which it is not, therefore meaning that this level of precision is not actually useful in this example])." :-)

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    23. Re:Mind-numbing computational outsourcing by Kvasio · · Score: 1

      yes, and I believe that our civilisation won't fall or survive because we reached this level of precision with Pi.

  2. KGB it! by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

    You know the KGB commercials? I'd find it funny if someone were to ask them what the 5 trillionth and one decimal digit of Pi is.

    1. Re:KGB it! by sigmoid_balance · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually there is an algorithm to compute the n-th digit of Pi without computing the rest.

    2. Re:KGB it! by sigmoid_balance · · Score: 1, Redundant

      That's funny, but google is your friend. http://www.google.com/search?q=compute+the+nth+digit+of+pi

    3. Re:KGB it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The BBP formulas handle this. A quick Google for Bailey-Borwein-Plouffe should give you all the citations you ever need.

      A working example of the BBP formula can be found in Javascript on this webpage. http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~acollins/pi

      Warning: it WILL hang some web browsers as the author does not use web worker API.

    4. Re:KGB it! by zero0ne · · Score: 1

      I was thinking, you should ask them for Pi to 10 trillion decimal places... but then I thought, by the time they sent you the first half of all those text messages (something like ~31 billion assuming 161 characters max), they would have enough time to calculate the next 5 trillion, along with making a crapload of money from all the fees.

    5. Re:KGB it! by ultranova · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually there is an algorithm to compute the n-th digit of Pi without computing the rest.

      Okay, so what's the last digit of Pi?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    6. Re:KGB it! by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      f(infinity+1) ... where f is the computation algorithm.

    7. Re:KGB it! by marcansoft · · Score: 0

      That only works for the hexadecimal/octal/binary/2**n-ary representation of pi, though. To get the n-th decimal digit you still need to calculate the rest.

    8. Re:KGB it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure you want to give them such an easy question? I mean seriously, they have a 1 in 10 chance in getting it right, and WE would be the ones that have to calculate it to verify the answer.

    9. Re:KGB it! by JustOK · · Score: 3, Funny

      in binary, it's either a 1 or a 0, so you have a 50/50 chance of being right.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    10. Re:KGB it! by DriedClexler · · Score: 2, Funny

      Okay, so what's the last digit of Pi?

      Chuck Norris.

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    11. Re:KGB it! by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Pi has decimal digit extractors. In fact, I think there's an arbitrary base algorithm.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    12. Re:KGB it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and the answer is 8.

    13. Re:KGB it! by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      That's fantastic

      So all you do is use that, and work backwards if you want to break any record. COOL!

    14. Re:KGB it! by dalleboy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually the last digit of PI is 1 in binary.

      As 0.1b is the same as 0.10b

    15. Re:KGB it! by b0r0din · · Score: 3, Interesting

      in binary, it's either a 1 or a 0, so you have a 50/50 chance of being right.

      In unary it's just 0. It's zeroes all the way down. Easy to calculate too, you just turn off your computer forever. Dead computing is the new trend.

    16. Re:KGB it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess 1, and you'd be 100% correct. All binary numbers either end in a 1 in the fractional place or essentially are irrational when converted. Check out: http://www.mathsisfun.com/binary-decimal-hexadecimal-converter.html

    17. Re:KGB it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's the braindead dimwit who modded this troll?? It's completely accurate.

    18. Re:KGB it! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Wrong. The last digit is 2. And the digit before is 4.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    19. Re:KGB it! by __aamnbm3774 · · Score: 1

      in little-endian perhaps.

    20. Re:KGB it! by JustOK · · Score: 2, Funny

      unary moderation, everyone is a troll all the way down.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    21. Re:KGB it! by justleavealonemmmkay · · Score: 1

      In base Pi, it's zero.

    22. Re:KGB it! by guyminuslife · · Score: 1

      I don't think that's true. As far as I see, you can't represent the last digit of pi at all in unary. You can represent the positive integers in unary. I suppose you could represent the negative integers. You cannot represent zero. You can represent real numbers as a fraction, but as far as I know, not as a decimal (sic).

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    23. Re:KGB it! by guyminuslife · · Score: 1

      Errr....really I meant you can represent rational numbers as a fraction. You can't represent irrational numbers as a fraction for all the obvious reasons.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    24. Re:KGB it! by UnanimousCoward · · Score: 1

      Actually there is an algorithm to compute the n-th digit of Pi without computing the rest.

      Okay, so what's the last digit of Pi?

      We here in Flatland always get a hearty chuckle when we read about human antics. As you know, we are a Base-pi society as opposed to basing our number system on something as arbitrary as the number of digits we have (btw, what's a digit again?).

      So does that answer your question?

      --
      Twelve-and-three-quarter inches. Unyielding. This wand belonged to Bellatrix Lestrange.
    25. Re:KGB it! by NikeHerc · · Score: 1

      42

      --
      Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
    26. Re:KGB it! by Opyros · · Score: 1

      Because we don't have any BBP-type formula for pi which works in decimal. (Although there is such a formula for pi**2 which can compute ternary digits!)

    27. Re:KGB it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The format used to store it has no bearing on the actual value!

    28. Re:KGB it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who the fuck moderated this informative? It's funny, to be sure, but it is in no way informative, and now some poor slob is going to get some confused ideas about infinity.

      mathematicians have a hard enough time explaining infinity to people without faggots modding crap like this informative.

    29. Re:KGB it! by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      Since PI has an infinite number of nontrivial digits, there's no such thing as the last digit of PI.

    30. Re:KGB it! by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      I am pretty sure that in base Pi, the first, last and only digit of Pi would be 1.

    31. Re:KGB it! by MikaelC · · Score: 1
      And BBP was indeed used to validate their results:

      Pi - Verification
      64 hours (Primary - Bellard's BBP)
      66 hours (Secondary - Plouffe's BBP)

    32. Re:KGB it! by justleavealonemmmkay · · Score: 2, Interesting

      no, in base Pi, Pi=1*Pi^1 + 0*Pi^0 + 0*Pi^-1 + 0*Pi^-2 + 0*Pi^-3 + 0*Pi^-4...

      hence, in base Pi, Pi= 10.0000000000..., like in base 10, 10=10.00000000000..., like in base 2, 2=10.0000000...

    33. Re:KGB it! by the_other_chewey · · Score: 1

      Actually there is an algorithm to compute the n-th digit of Pi without computing the rest.

      Yup

      However, it only works in base 16 - which means that for decimal digits, one still
      has to calculate the whole thing.

    34. Re:KGB it! by menkhaura · · Score: 1

      Ladies and gentlemen, here comes THE HIT at our party: ioshhdflwuegfh!!

      (to ruin the joke, and apologize to ioshhdflwuegfh, I inform you that I'm slightly drunk and I tend not to be that hit at parties myself)

      --
      Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
      Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
    35. Re:KGB it! by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      No offense taken.

    36. Re:KGB it! by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      Not redundant. A citation is needed.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_approximations_of_%23Digit_extraction_methods should be good enough.

      However, for an arbitrary base (like base 10 I guess?), the question is, HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE to calculate something that far out? The digit that is. 5 trillion is a large number. And yes, I mean in base 10.

    37. Re:KGB it! by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      Thank you! I was beginning to wonder if I'd turned up on the wrong planet. A fairly strong claim like that could at least be supported by one link...

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    38. Re:KGB it! by idle12 · · Score: 1

      Print out a 100 random numbers. Ask them were in PI this number is located.

  3. So is there a message (from God?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I've heard that in the book (not movie) "Contact" that when Jodie Foster's character meets the uber-aliens she asks them:

    "Do you believe in God?"
    -"Yes"
    Taken aback "Really, why?"
    -"We have proof, when PI is expended out to (some number), there is a message"...

    I really wish I read the book to know what the message is (maybe "Nietsche is dead"?)

    I no longer login because I feel that while attacking a company's products is fair game (specifically Apple), having stories singling out their users as "selfish" and unkind is not "news for nerds stuff that matters". Am I an Apple fanboi? Let's just say I've used NIX for decades (yes I'm old) and I'm not talking OS X.

    1. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Informative

      The aliens are vague about the location of the message (it might be in pi) so the Foster character runs software to search for it. Right at the end of the book her program finds a pattern (A circle drawn in 1s and 0s in an 11 by 11 matrix). This pulls together the thread in the book about belief in god vs religion. It turns out that somebody made the universe after all, and the Christians had been (sort of) right all along, though the scientists were right to demand evidence.

      I love both the book and film. Thats unusual for me. The Postman was a fantastic book. Don't get me started on the movie.

      I often put the DVD of Contact on just to watch the sequence where Fosters character first hears the signal and her crew reconfigure the telescope to analyse it. Its a classic tech scene.

      "Once upon a time I was a hell of an engineer"

    2. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hey Bill Joy! No need to post Anonymously and Coward, it's okay. Even Jesus spoke ill of God when he got him nailed into a cross.
      Real believers know that after you are dead you will come back to the side of vi.

    3. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I no longer login because I was modded down to terrible karma when I tried to stand up for one of Apple's gay products, and subsequently bragged about performing fellatio on Steve Jobs. People thought I was trolling but actually I was telling the truth.. Am I an Apple fanboi? Yes Indeed.

      FTFY.

    4. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by Cyberax · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Taken aback "Really, why?"
      -"We have proof, when PI is expended out to (some number), there is a message"..."

      Duh.

      http://everything2.com/title/Converting+Pi+to+binary%253A+Don%2527t+do+it%2521

    5. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I stand exposed! ;)

    6. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Right at the end of the book her program finds a pattern (A circle drawn in 1s and 0s in an 11 by 11 matrix).

      Wait, so the message from God is a circle? I find this one a little more convincing:

      http://dresdencodak.com/2009/07/12/fabulous-prizes/

    7. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2, Funny

      "We have proof, when PI is expended out to (some number), there is a message"

      "Five trillion digits ought to be enough for anybody - God"

    8. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually, it's quite safe to calculate Pi in binary, if you do enough of it. After all, somewhere in it you'll find a message from each copyright owner, signed with his secret key, that you are allowed to have a copy of the copyrighted work. Moreover, you'll have documents about everyone on earth which reveal facts they rather would not like to be published. So actually having enough digits of Pi in binary gives you near-absolute power! That's why THEY want to scare you away from calculating Pi in binary.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    9. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Once upon a time I was a hell of an engineer"

      Go Jackets?

    10. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Much agreed. I like the book a lot better than the movie (the characterizations are superb), but its perhaps one of the best big screen adaptations i've seen, and a gripping sci-fi movie for people who usually don't enjoy sci-fi.

    11. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea is interesting. Unfortunately, almost every real number is a normal number. By virtue of this fact, almost every real number contains every possible finite length message.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_number

    12. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where's the +1 "sad" moderation when you need it ...

    13. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      However, almost every real number cannot be calculated.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    14. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      I always found that concept, encoding a message in pi, to be staggeringly stupid. The value of pi doesn't depend on physics, which is why we are able to determine it algorithmically rather than experimentally. (Some people argue 'but pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, and that depends on physics'. Yes, that ratio depends on physics, for physical circles, provided that some other physical geometry besides 'flat' is possible. But a non-flat geometry would just mean that the circumference of a circle in that geometry would not be pi. Our pi, the one that we use and calculate, is for flat geometries, and it is the same in every theoretically flat geometry, irrespective of whatever geometry the minds thinking of such a thing happen to live in.) God can not change the value of pi.

    15. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That was just the 'message' left in Pi. I believe in the book, Pi was just the easy one to find (calculated to a few hundred trillion places or something) - the 'better' messages were in the harder/longer to calculate irrational numbers which were still beyond our ability to find at the end of the book.

    16. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But maybe that just demonstrates the limits of our thinking. We re used to the parameters of our universe and have trouble imagining how things could be different.

    17. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      The aliens are vague about the location of the message (it might be in pi) so the Foster character runs software to search for it. Right at the end of the book her program finds a pattern (A circle drawn in 1s and 0s in an 11 by 11 matrix). This pulls together the thread in the book about belief in god vs religion. It turns out that somebody made the universe after all, and the Christians had been (sort of) right all along, though the scientists were right to demand evidence.

      If you're given a free hand at the decryption code, you can find any message you want. Presumably the infinite non-repeating sequence of digits is full of marvelous patterns when displayed on a grid as well.

      Maybe *every* pattern on every grid size, but I'm not sure of that. (The digits aren't actually independent random numbers.)

      It's just a matter of time until some charlatan claims to find a message in our DNA. In a society that can't grok what's the deal with The Bible Codes, people will believe him.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    18. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right at the end of the book her program finds a pattern (A circle drawn in 1s and 0s in an 11 by 11 matrix).

      Wait, so the message from God is a circle? I find this one a little more convincing:

      http://dresdencodak.com/2009/07/12/fabulous-prizes/

      It was clear in the book that there were many messages embedded in the structure of the universe in subtle ways. This was, apparently, the first and easiest to find, just to let you know they existed. The others presumably contained more useful information.

      And to the first poster, sorry, but the book was waaaaaay better than the movie.

    19. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      But maybe that just demonstrates the limits of our thinking. We re used to the parameters of our universe and have trouble imagining how things could be different.

      Of course there are many, many, marvelous things that are beyond our imagination. But the abstraction pi can be understood to be what it is, within the framework that defines it. This isn't affected by those other unknown things. If there were a 'different' pi that could be conceived of in some other realm, it would have other properties and relationships, and could be given a different name to distinguish it from the one we work with. It is not physical, is not measured, is not a 'parameter of our universe', or affected by those parameters. The digits are not arbitrary or subject to change, which is why people have cooked up so many different ways to calculate them that are well understood and all yield the same result. Perhaps there are universes where it is impossible to conceive of pi, but pi is still pi.

    20. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by orange47 · · Score: 1

      oh my, they did their calculations on windows! so there must be some nasty viruses in those first 5 trillion already

    21. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by tibit · · Score: 1

      I think that it's one of those big things that we just don't quite can wrap our minds around. What does it mean that there's a certain structure and properties to geometries, that topology of things looks just like so and not some other way, etc? Do those things depend at all on the universe we live in? Would, somehow, someone in another universe find, that PI has a different value even though it's not a physical constant as far as we can tell? And maybe we're just mistaken and it is really a physical constant?

      I'd say that things would need to be so "different" that if PI had a different value, then also the Jones polynomial for knots would look different -- things would have to be just fundamentally different at a low level -- so it seems to me.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    22. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by ATestR · · Score: 1

      If you're given a free hand at the decryption code, you can find any message you want... Maybe *every* pattern on every grid size"

      Yes, given infinite digits, every pattern would appear eventually. However, the point that was made in the book was that the probability of a particular pattern appearing is vanishingly small. In the book Contact, the embedded circle of 1's in and 11 x 11 grid appeared after a LONG (>10^6) sequence of just 0's... and followed by one too. Then PI continued as always. As I recall (been a few years since I've read it), the calculation was not made in base 10 (or 16).

      Such a coincidental arrangement of numbers would not be "proof" that there was a God, but it would certainly be suggestive. For proof, I'd want a whole bunch of such suggestive things.

      --
      âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
    23. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the story was originally written as a movie, then made into a book, and then (after Carl's death) made into a movie.

      The book was better, one of the things that made it better was the fact that 5 people were given a ride to meet the aliens (an african a chinese, a russian an indian and an american) and the part at the end about finding the message in pi.

    24. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      "We have proof, when PI is expended out to (some number), there is a message"...

      Of course, pi is normal in binary. Every possible message will occur eventually. So if we expand pi far enough, we might even find a positive review for Carrot Top's act. Turns out that math can be wrong.

    25. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      The problem is, if you look long enough, hard enough, any message you can think of will appear in pi. Put it in Base 26 and you'll eventually find the complete works of Shakespeare (it might be 10^10^10^10 digits down, but it will be there). I was kind of disappointing in the book that Sagan didn't at least discuss the probability of finding something that appears significant by the time they reached the depth they were at.

    26. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      I think that it's one of those big things that we just don't quite can wrap our minds around.

      OK. Speak for yourself.

    27. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A sufficiently long run of random digits would have the entire text of the novel "Contact" in it somewhere. Remember the infinite monkeys doing Shakespeare? "Nietsche is dead" is easy.

    28. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> maybe "Nietsche is dead"?)

      Drink Your Ovaltine

    29. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      The probability of that one message is vanishingly small, but they didn't set out looking for a circle of 1's surrounding a sea of 0's followed by a 2 (in base 11 by the way). They set out looking for... something. They didn't know what they were looking for, literally a 'know it when you see it' kind of search. As such, it is almost, in not completely, impossible to put a probability on finding something, since you don't really know what it is that you're looking for. So, at 1 trillion digits, there's 10^6 sequences of 10^6 numbers; times however many bases that you're going to look in. There might easily be a billion sequences of varying length that would appear significant. Finding something that appears out of the ordinary (even into sequences of 10^4 or more) in 1 trillion random digits might not be as unlikely as it seems.

    30. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The aliens shouldn't have been that surprised. Puny Earthling mathematicians wouldn't be- they suspect that any finite string of digits is a substring of pi's digit expansion. Unfortunately, no one has been able to prove it.

    31. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by jd · · Score: 1

      There is nothing in the book to say that it was from God. Indeed, the aliens say that the wormhole transit system was created by some earlier race but in disrepair and abandoned, suggesting the message was from some extremely advanced civilization. It's impossible to be sure if Sagan was implying that this civilization created the universe (science at the time of the book's writing was predicting that it is possible to create a separate universe, not sure if it still does) or had modified the universe in some way as to alter the constants (there have been discussions, from time to time, as to whether fundamental constants have altered).

      Nor was there anything in the book - as far as I recall - that said that there was only one message in any given constant. My impression was that the circle served the same purpose as the prime numbers in the alien message - a beacon to indicate that a deeper message existed.

      If I recall, the actual message itself was not decyphered by the alien race. Whether this was because insufficient constants had been examined to sufficient depth, or whether this was because the purpose of the message was merely to show that there is something more and had no meaning beyond that, is unclear. Both explanations are hinted at.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    32. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      I just checked the wiki, and they were searching out to a depth of 10^20. To put that in perspective, the sequence '123456789' is found within the first 10^9 digits of pi, which, if you don't take all the statistics into account, seems pretty incredible. As you say though, the sequence they found was an incredibly long sequence of 1's and 0's, apparently the product of 11 prime numbers in length which comes out to at least 10^11 (assuming the smallest primes are used). I wish I knew enough statistics to figure out what the probability of a binary string of that length in 10^20 digits are, but sadly I don't so I can't even evaluate how impressive it is.

    33. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by tibit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm serious. How would you even start an argument about PI not being a physical constant? It's really just a matter of definition, and in that sense there's no argument.

      But we say that physical constants are some things we measure, and other seemingly fundamental things we can measure are not (like PI). PI can be of course measured to a good few digits by manufacturing a sphere or a disk/cylinder, and then measuring the circumference and radius. We then also have mathematical theories that can come up with PI to arbitrary accuracy, but that's just a bonus. We don't know -- maybe we will come up with similarly good theories for other things that can be measured, say the fine-structure constant.

      We really don't know how closely the physics of our Universe are coupled with the structure we see in the mathematics. It's kind of philosophical, but we "discover" things in mathematics. So what is this thing that we discover then -- where is it. In our minds only? Or is it really just our minds picking it up, noticing it.

      So I can't really say anyone can quite wrap his/her mind around it. I'd go further: anyone claiming to be able to do so is quite a kook. It's like claiming to understand why quantum mechanics or gravitation behaves just like so. We have no clue *why* it behaves just like so, exactly like we have no clue what to make of the value of PI.

      We know how to apply all this knowledge, but we know of no "ulterior motive" for it. Certain phenomena can be inferred from other, more fundamental ones -- say Bernoulli effect is just a manifestation of laws of conservation intertwined with laws of dynamics -- so we can say why we see the Bernoulli effect. But we can't say why the quantum mechanical behavior of the atoms that make up the medium is just so -- we know no more basic stuff to explain that. We just observe it to be so, but can claim no further insight.

      Same with PI: we have no clue where it came from. I don't claim we need to have such a clue -- but please, don't claim more insight than we actually possess. We are pretty clueless and IMHO that's what's exciting: there's still plenty of stuff to discover.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    34. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by smaddox · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that any pattern can be found in the digits of pi, if you look long enough. Yes, any pattern. Finding some pattern in pi is no more proof of god than finding the Virgin Marry on your toast.

    35. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by jackbird · · Score: 1

      The book deals with binary encoded messages in large numbers before that point, so the gist is that the character already knows she's looking for a statistically improbable string of 1s and 0s. She's also searching in a number of different bases at once.

    36. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      've heard that in the book (not movie) "Contact" that when Jodie Foster's character meets the uber-aliens she asks them:

      "Do you believe in God?"
      -"Yes"
      Taken aback "Really, why?"
      -"We have proof, when PI is expended out to (some number), there is a message"...

      I'm fairly certain it is, "We apologize for the inconvenience".

    37. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by jd · · Score: 1

      You are correct that it can be found algorithmically, though in defense of Carl Sagan, there were serious discussions at the time as to whether the fundamental constants were actually constant. As I recall, it was to get round some extremely messy and inconvenient issues with the extremely early universe. The values as they stand make things exceedingly messy and physicists hate messy. It also ties in with questions that Hawking and other cosmologists were arguing about at the time, which boiled down to a question of what aspects of mathematics and physics are invariant - if a multiverse did indeed exist, what things MUST be the same across all of them because logic alone dictates that is the way they must be?

      My impression of the "message in Pi" was that Sagan was sympathetic to the idea that the fundamental constants were not necessarily dictated by logic alone. That if you were to actually create a universe by creating a region of sufficient energy density for inflationary theory to kick in that there were certain parameters you could feed in where some of those parameters would tweak those constants. Remember, he wanted his book to describe physics correctly (hence his debates with Professor Kip Thorne on wormholes), but "correct" can never be better than what is known at the time even if it is subsequently shown to be false. In this case, the discovery that you can find individual digits of Pi directly and algorithmically was unknown, and although there is still some uncertainty over the fundamental constants (certain forms of M-Theory allow different universes to have different constants), the debate over whether the values have changed seems to have died down. However, this is long after the book was written.

      I think that if Sagan were alive today and were to re-write Contact that he would put the deeper message somewhere else, reflecting what is now known. However, since everything discussed in the book is cutting-edge physics, the theories are evolving too fast for ANY version of the book to have much staying-power in terms of what we believe is possible. There are now question-marks about wormholes that did not exist back then, for example.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    38. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't a number with an infinite number of digits bound to produce such an occurrence somewhere in its infinite length?

      I did like the movie though.

    39. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Such a coincidental arrangement of numbers would not be "proof" that there was a God, but it would certainly be suggestive. For proof, I'd want a whole bunch of such suggestive things.

      And you'd have them. If pi has the properties mathematicians suspect it does, not only does every finite string of digits appear somewhere in it, but they each appear an infinite number of times.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    40. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by jd · · Score: 1

      Yeeeees, but there are degrees of randomness. If you assume that a strong of some length will exhibit some specific degree of randomness and that this can be quantified, and that ANY comparable-length string in Pi will have a similar degree of randomness, then if you were to find one specific strong of that length in Pi which exhibited an extremely different value (say, zero), then you have found something abnormal.

      It reminds me some of the Dilbert cartoon where Dilbert meets up with a troll generating random numbers by only saying "nine". On Dilbert asking if that was really random, the reply was that it's very hard to tell with random numbers. It is very hard and technically it is possible for a truly random number generator to only emit a specific constant within the lifetime of that generator. That's why there's a requirement by people studying randomness that things be random on a multitude of scales and not just overall and why tests for randomness are under constant development.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    41. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by jd · · Score: 1

      Actually, IIRC, Pi was shown not to be normal. Which makes sense. Geeks like Pi and how many normal geeks are there?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    42. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

      I'll see your pi and raise you an e.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    43. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by mujadaddy · · Score: 1

      It's just a matter of time until some charlatan claims to find a message in our DNA. In a society that can't grok what's the deal with The Bible Codes, people will believe him.

      That reminds me, you should all subscribe to my newsletter!

      --
      Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
      "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
    44. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I no longer login because I was modded down to terrible karma when I tried to stand up for one of Apple's gay products, and subsequently bragged about performing fellatio on Steve Jobs. People thought I was trolling but actually I was telling the truth.. Am I an Apple fanboi? Yes Indeed.

      FTFY.

      Hey. I'm not happy that you're not keeping your head up high and logging in. Fix this. -- Steve

      --
      Sent with my iPhone

    45. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by Draek · · Score: 1

      Imagine a square whose sides are 1, and whose diagonal is also 1. That's what "a different value of Pi" is like.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    46. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      The circle is not the message itself. The circle is the first real proof that a message may be there.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    47. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      say Bernoulli effect is just a manifestation of laws of conservation intertwined with laws of dynamics -- so we can say why we see the Bernoulli effect.

      Do you then accept that there is such thing as the Bernoulli effect in some sense?

    48. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      You speak of 'fundamental constants' as if the gravitational constant or planck's length are in the same class as pi.

      They might be unchangeable like pi. Or maybe not. But in either case pi isn't affected by our understanding of those other constants, because unlike them, pi has been understood more deeply than that for a very long time.

      But of course Carl Sagan was a physicist and generalist, not an expert in arithmetic, and it was just a science fiction book anyway.

    49. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      In the book Contact, the embedded circle of 1's in and 11 x 11 grid appeared after a LONG (>10^6) sequence of just 0's... and followed by one too.

      I dunno, circle in 11x11 resolution just isn't very precise thing. If it were something like, say, smiley, well that I'd consider much more seriously.

    50. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      Good point, I didn't think of that. Though I suppose that even though pi has infinite digits, it does have a start. So the existence of a message near the beginning would not have the same implications as being able to find one anywhere.

      Similarly, if I found a fabulously detailed image of Mary on my toast, and had several other related and equally unlikely experiences, and if I had it recorded and corroborated to be certain I wasn't simply insane....I still wouldn't consider it adequate evidence of Mary. But certainly it would be evidence of demons or something on that order.

    51. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      You may understand a lot about many things. But how does it make sense to say that someone else can't understand something just because you don't? You admit that you have no clue about where pi comes from, so how then can you presume to know that I don't? Who is this "we" who has no clue about where pi came from? I'm not claiming special knowledge here, I'm sure there are at least thousands and probably tens of thousands of people who understand pi as well as I do.

      Pi has a very precise definition, which is completely independent of measurements of circles, and which is the definition we use when we calculate digits of pi. Of course you can redefine 'pi' as being something else, and then say the truth or falsehood of any statement about it is just semantics. But that's a silly trick that can be played with anything. I could say 'the moon is not made of cheese', and you could redefine 'cheese' as 'rock' and disagree. But the original discussion is about calculating pi, and there's no ambiguity in what that means. Its not as if the definition was arbitrary, and could have been made to be 3.14 or 3.13. And the definition does not at all depend on any constants of physics.

    52. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      Yeah, e is e also, independent of any 'constants' of physics.

      As a side note, e springs out of the concept of logarithms, and from logarithms its also easy to show why there are 12 notes in a musical octave. Twelve is the scheme that minimizes disharmony, with relatively few notes, with five being the next best choice. But I've had this same argument with supposed experts in brain function that claim that 12 is arbitrary and cultural. It seems as if a lot of highly educated people know a lot of stuff but aren't aware that its possible to understand anything.

      (Years ago I read a book by that title by the way, the farmer-in-the-dell allusion. I can't say I liked the book very much, but I was young then.)

    53. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by Saberwind · · Score: 1

      I believe in God, and I enjoyed the book, but the bit about God hiding messages in Pi was ridiculous.

      If a simple function can calculate arbitrary digits of a mathematical constant, then no message deliberately hidden within that constant could be more complex than the function itself.

      Also, I can see how God could manipulate a physical constant if He wanted to, but surely not a mathematical one!

    54. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by Wescotte · · Score: 1

      If Pi is infinite and has no discernible patterns then wouldn't that basically fall into the infinite monkeys and typewriter category? If you look long enough you will find any encoded message you want because it contained every possible coded message?

    55. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by jd · · Score: 1

      Ah, I'll clarify my point as I think there may have been some mis-communication on my part, to judge from your reply. If (and I grant it is a big "if") the gravitational constant is a value that is determined by pure logic and by logic alone, then it cannot vary. If pi has the value it has because of some specific property in geometry such that other geometries would have different values for pi AND those geometries are not inconsistent with what could physically exist then (and only then) could pi differ between universes in a multiverse. Whether a transform existed such that one geometry could be converted to another within a single universe is another problem entirely - and completely moot if constants like pi would be the same in all of them anyway.

      In other words, if (and only if) it is the geometry that decides the specific value of pi AND other geometries exist AND constants like the gravitational constant or planck's length are decided by essentially identical mechanisms, then the gravitational constant is indeed in the same class as pi. If any of these is false, then they are not in the same class.

      It is not my contention that this extremely narrow condition is true. Rather, it is my contention that Carl Sagan's ending to the book shows that he thought it might be true. Otherwise, given the constraints he placed on what he was willing to write, he would have used a different ending. As he is dead, it is unclear if anyone (even his wife) knows the actual reason for the ending or what alternatives he considered, but it's the only option that makes sense to me.

      Yes, you are absolutely correct that he was not an expert in arithmetic (or, indeed, geometry). It is a general rule-of-thumb that scientists tread on dangerous ground when they speculate outside of their specialty, so it is entirely possible that by doing so he introduced a misunderstanding on his part. Alternatively, he may have written himself into a corner. Wanting to use the message motif at a deeper level and having absolutely no idea how to do it, merely used the first idea that popped into his head. I'm not as happy with those answers because of his statements concerning the scientific accuracy, but they are certainly possible.

      You are also correct that is is a science fiction book. I've always been a bit borderline on that - there's a designation of "speculative fiction" for sci-fi that is still fiction but is totally correct to the science as known at the time. This isn't important to most people, it only matters to those who want to extrapolate from the book in some way, as it determines how they can extrapolate. The idea behind the various sub-categories is that there's a difference between novels where the emphasis is on the fiction rather than the science versus novels where the fiction is a vehicle to explore the consequences of differing laws of physics versus novels where the fiction is a vehicle to explore the implications of science fact.

      If (and only if) Contact was in this final class, exploring the implications of science fact, is it meaningful to extrapolate anything about the real world. Books of this kind (which are very rare) are intended specifically to promote such extrapolation and investigation. There's not much point in writing a book so absolutely rigidly and checking every last detail if the story could have worked just as well in a completely fictional universe. Precisely because it does involve a lot of tedious work for relatively little gain (and virtually no audience as only a die-hard SF fanatic would find such a book readable), authors generally promote investigation by other means.

      Probably the best-known method is to mix the dryest of speculative fiction with regular science fiction. Here, only the element of concern is adhered to absolutely rigidly, the rest of the universe is merely a device to convey the story. Thus, you have the absolute adherence to some real-world fact, but all other aspects of the story are entirely driven by the need to tell a good tale. "Flatland" would

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    56. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The feynman point (762nd) and the four digits before that are 1134999999 upside down, it's 666666 4311, or 666666 HELL.

      And feynman (though my hero) was an atheist (oh noes!). Wikipedia says the chance any 6+ digit repetition of any digit that early in a normal number is 0.08%. And though it's pretty unlikely that god sent a message in pi so that it could only be readable by judeo-christian lunatic living in the english-speaking part of the world and particularly interested in "1337speak" to encode a message in that way, it is a statistically interesting coincidence.

    57. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by IICV · · Score: 1

      That's actually not true, and the E2 analysis is flawed. Just because Pi is irrational and has an infinite decimal expansion does not mean that the distribution of numbers uniform, which is what the E2 analysis assumes.

      As an example, let's define some number Pi9 such that its decimal expansion is exactly like Pi's, but all nines are replaced with zero. Clearly, this number is also irrational just like Pi is, but no matter how hard you look you'll never find the number "9" in it.

      In a similar fashion, you're not actually guaranteed to find anything in Pi; it may very well work out that no such copyrighted work exists therein.

    58. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      If (and I grant it is a big "if") the gravitational constant is a value that is determined by pure logic and by logic alone, then it cannot vary.

      Right. Maybe you remember a discussion on this site some months back about whether G could be derived from plancks constant. I don't know enough about that one to have an opinion. It would not surprise me if changing the value of one of those constants would be analogous to a units change, and would leave you with essentially the same universe. But its also at least as plausible to me that there are universes that are quite a bit different than what we know about the one we're in.

      If pi has the value it has because of some specific property in geometry such that other geometries would have different values for pi AND those geometries are not inconsistent with what could physically exist

      This gets closer to the crux of what I was trying to say. The mathematical pi does not depend on how well a particular theoretical geometry models the 'space' we live in. Pi depends only on certain very simple rules of logic, and those rules don't have to be 'true' in the sense that they accurately model some aspect of nature. We just state them, which we are able to do in our world, and within the context of what we stated, that is what we are talking about. Somebody could show that the theoretical geometries we work with completely break down at some point as models for our universe (actually we know that they do), but that has no bearing on pi. The radius of a circular object in our world might not be exactly pi times the diameter. But even if we knew that, we would still deal with planes and 'flat' 3-d abstractions as useful and relatively easy to deal with models, and so the digits of pi that we compute in that context would be what they are now. Maybe a brief way to imagine this is to consider e^(-pi)=-1. The value of e follows from the idea of exponential growth, in which rate of change is equal to magnitude, and pi follows from e. There's no geometry in that. Maybe there's intelligent aliens somewhere that don't conceive of 'equality' or complex numbers or cycles or exponential growth. And maybe they can't, in their reality. But if they can, then their e is the same as ours.

      I should have been more polite about Carl Sagan - he was great at what he did.

      In 'Pushing Ice', a very good science fiction book by Alastair Reynolds, an entire interstellar civilization called the 'slashers', one of two primary human civilizations, is descended from slashdot. Imagine that, compared to the trainwreck of arguments based on misleading summaries that slashdot is in reality!

      On the subject of alternative universes....In physics, there is the assumption that once a wave function 'collapses', it stays that way. In other words, you can not make a measurement, then afterwards make another measurement which is inconsistent with the first one. Or in other words, at each instant we live in a single, unified, logically coherent, quantum mechanical 'world', and if there are other worlds they aren't mixed up with ours. This assumption is consistent with our experience, because if it were not true all kinds of weird and disturbing consequences follow. Certainly the assumption is true at least almost all the time, or an awful lot of our gadgets wouldn't work. But I don't know of any theoretical reason that it has to be true all the time. And a world where it was true merely most the time, but not as often as it seems to be for us, would be really different from what we experience. Maybe most physicists take it somewhat on faith - it must be fundamentally true, because its never been demonstrated otherwise. But of course, our science consists of all the things we've found it easy to demonstrate by conducting repeatable experiments, and that might leave quite a lot of reality outside of it.

    59. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by jd · · Score: 1

      For your last point, I'll offer a thought experiment I devised a while back. It assumes the existence of wormholes, which may or may not invalidate it. The idea is this. You start with the basics of Schrodinger's Cat experiment (a radioactive particle in a box) but place the detector (or cat and poison vial, if you like) in a different box. Link the two boxes together with a wormhole. Now, place the two boxes in different timeframes by accelerating one of them.

      Let us say that the box that contains the detector is in the past, relative to the box containing the radioactive particle. The particle may or may not decay. In the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, both events will happen. Since the detector is in the past of this event, it cannot see which of the two events has happened. It would seem to be a bit like having a Y connector in a water pipe or an OR gate in logic - if either input has something going through it, there will be an output. This means that the detector will register an event, EVEN IF the observer who eventually opens the box does so in the universe in which the particle has not decayed.

      This produces two possible options. Either the collapse of the waveform happens at the detector (in which case the particle's future is pre-determined - it HAS to decay or not decay according to what the detector says) OR the many-worlds interpretation is incorrect. Any other possibility requires the possibility of having an event in one universe caused by an event in a different universe. This would not violate causality overall, merely within the confines of that universe.

      This thought experiment was something I put on the shelf for a while, but I got much more interested in it with Hawking's theory regarding information near black holes. The problem is that information cannot be created or destroyed in the standard model, not without some serious consequences (such as the total unraveling of causality). Hawking's argument is that in the many-worlds theory you can sum information across alternate universes, which means you get zero loss, which means there's no messy causality problems. But if you CAN sum information across universes then, provided wormholes exist, you can indeed Y-pipe those universes together.

      Now, let's try extrapolating from this thought experiment. Let us say that the solution to the first problem is that the collapse of the waveforms does indeed migrate back in time to the detector. Let us also say that there are wormholes naturally occurring in the quantum foam, where the ends (since all particles are created in pairs in the foam and a wormhole is its own pair) are moving at some non-zero velocity with respect to each other. This would imply that a certain amount of information dribbles from one timeframe to another all the time, which in turn means that some non-zero amount of information would have to have dribbled back to T=0. The implication of this is that certain events in time are (as Doctor Who has claimed) indeed fixed. The split into the different many worlds has already happened, the waveform has already collapsed, what happens in this universe - with respect to those specific events - cannot change. All universes that fork from this one will have those events in common.

      If all information dribbled back, then all possible outcomes would still happen but in any given universe they already have. The sum total would be totally non-deterministic even though any individual universe would be totally deterministic. Whilst solving any time-travel paradox and without technically violating the many-worlds concept, I'm not sure you'd get a lot of physicists to buy into a strict T=0 split. Although I would add that I'm not the first to propose that as a way of resolving QM issues. It has been proposed by better-qualified minds before, albeit for different reasons.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    60. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 'better' message was: Be sure to drink your Ovaltine

    61. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Pi9 would be irrational, but not normal. Pi is conjectured to be normal. That's the crucial difference between Pi and Pi9. Not all irrational numbers are normal, but Pi probably is.

      You are, however, right in that I'm not guaranteed to find everything in Pi, because the normality of Pi has not yet been proven. E2 assumes the conjecture to be true.

      And yes, normality does mean that the distribution of numbers is uniform.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    62. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. Every possible message must necessarily be there.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    63. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Though I suppose that even though pi has infinite digits, it does have a start. So the existence of a message near the beginning would not have the same implications as being able to find one anywhere.

      Since pi has an infinite number of digits we are always "near the beginning" no matter how many digits we generate.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    64. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the thought. I still have to digest that further. You obviously know a lot more about this than I do.

      If you have time to kill and feel like it....Can you say anything about whether its mathematically possible for our 'world' to jump around between different 'world' states? In other words, can the present change to a state that would have occurred had something taken a different path in the past? I don't see how we would be able to tell experimentally, since the history we have evidence of would always be consistent with whatever we see at the moment. Conceptually, history would be somewhat like a big squirming snake. Although it must maintain causal consistency, meaning the body isn't broken, the whole causal chain events would have some freedom to move 'laterally' through worlds as one piece.

      The condition that I was somewhat ineptly trying to posit earlier would be similar, but instead of our world jumping in its entirely, only part of it would change, in which case we would be able to tell that something happened.

      To try to illustrate using the classic double slit setup: Crudely, I think of there being a wavelike distribution of 'possible' particle locations. You get the interference pattern because these 'possible' particles interact with each other. When you put the inductive loops around the slits, you limit each collection of possible particles to one slit, so the two-slit interference pattern disappears and you get hits on the screen consistent with particles going through one slit or the other. If you could individually detect particles hitting the screen, they would of course always hit in a spot consistent with whatever slit you measured them passing through.

      What I posited earlier, is that it might be possible to measure a particle going through one slit, then see it actually hit the screen as if it went through the other slit. Obviously, you would get all kinds of contradictions if this were to happen, and our cosmos would become a chaos. Its like introducing a contradiction in a chain of logic: from there on you can create all kinds of absurdities. Can this condition be ruled out mathematically, and if so, can you think of anything else that might produce some of the same symptoms?

      Going back to my first thought again, about the 'snake' history that moves with no apparent contradictions. Suppose a particle decays, in isolation, so that nothing in its future depends on it having decayed at a particular time. Might there be something analogous to a loss of tension, that allows the decay to 'slip' backwards in time, since it doesn't matter to anything else if it does? Can you rule this out? If not, what other types of destruction are there besides particle decay where this same principle would apply?

      I realize that the metaphors I'm using might be almost totally inappropriate or misleading. But I don't have the specialized knowledge, or the right type of intelligence, to deal with these things in a more rigorous manner.

    65. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      That depends on what you mean by near.

      By your argument, r=1000 in the complex plane is as close to the origin as r=0.001. But there's a lot of significant stuff that only goes on inside the unit circle. So I would consider r=0.001 close, and r=1000 far away.

      If the Gettysburg address were digitally encoded, and its first appearance in 'pi' started at digit 28, I would call that 'close'.

    66. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by GWRedDragon · · Score: 1

      By what method of encoding? You can also always invent an algorithm which will transform certain data to certain other data. As long as your 'message' is sufficiently short, the algorithm wouldn't have to be 'implausibly' complex, but that's another subjective judgement.

    67. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      e^(-pi) should read e^(ipi)

    68. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      To put that in perspective, the sequence '123456789' is found within the first 10^9 digits of pi, which, if you don't take all the statistics into account, seems pretty incredible.

      It's not actually all that improbable. If you independently select 9 random digits you have a 1/10^9 chance of getting that string. Try it almost 10^9 times, and you stand a fair chance of getting it.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    69. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by tibit · · Score: 1

      Look, I know that PI is defined in a certain way. That doesn't mean we know why it comes out just so -- why the particular numerical value is just what it is.

      Of course we can show that if we sum the series expansion that comes from the definition, the answer is 3.14... But that doesn't tell us why the first digit isn't say 2. Or 8. There are no further theories to that. It's pretty much an experiment: you take a formula for PI, you compute, and you get a number. So, while we certainly know that if you set things up just so, and derive what the value of PI might be, starting with some axioms and definition being one half the ratio of circle's circumference to radius, and you get the value.

      But had we had a real understanding of things, we could take a bunch of say starting digits of PI, and could actually tell that it is such a "special" number -- I'll get to what I mean by special in a second. Right now we can only compare to a list of "special" numbers. If you told all about how PI is derived to someone who never saw a part of the computed value itself, they'd have no way of telling that 3.1415... is PI -- they'd have to go through the motions of calculating it first, and then do the comparison and say "hey, the digits are same".

      The way I see that PI is "special" is that it is a condensation of a whole lot of things. We start with a certain metric that works in particular type of a space -- that is, we have to define what distance is, and how to measure it, and that points of the object are equidistant. And this choice -- of metric/space and object -- is embedded in the number PI.

      One can then think that real understanding would come if we could, given some number, find some structure in it that would tell us: OK, this number comes from some measurements in a space like so, with such a metric, of an object with infinitely many points equidistant to to one point. Maybe even we could enumerate such numbers, to find interesting spaces and metrics, or even interesting kinds of objects. But we have no such understanding at all, it seems.

      We have a better understanding of the structure of integers -- we have, after all, better ways of testing for primality than using sieves (enumerations), we can do factorizations, etc.

      But for real numbers, we're pretty much like newborns. Or else I missed some big discoveries, that is.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    70. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by jd · · Score: 1

      The answer is maybe. My thought experiment would suggest it may be possible for one possible outcome to alter the state of the universe in which a different outcome happened, which is similar to your own idea. If that is true, then the answer is necessarily yes. There may be other circumstances in which it could happen, but once you allow - even under the most restrictive of circumstances - a Y-piece to be added to the possible outcomes, then it becomes possible for a particle to go through one slit but register as though it went through the other.

      To complicate things further, you can do diffraction over time as well as space. I found the original paper and two followups but Physical Review is subscription only. If it is possible to diffract in time as well as space, then it automatically follows that events don't just happen and then go away. The different points in time have to be interacting in some way. I do not fully understand the implications of that, but I would interpret it as meaning that it does indeed mean that it is possible to snake between the different possible worlds, or at least some subset of them.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    71. Re:So is there a message (from God?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There *IS* a part of pi containing the pattern you mentioned, as well as any other pattern.
      There's a cool mathematical proof for that.

  4. Wow. by dtmos · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    A tour de force of math and computing hardware and software skills.

    Makes me want to turn in my geek card.

  5. Update... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Looks like the chart of computer-era approximations of Pi here might need an update.

    This chart is very outdated anyway.

    It doesn't even list Daisuke Takahashi (2009, 2.576.980.370.000 digits), and Fabrice Bellard (2010, 2.699.999.990.000 digits)

    1. Re:Update... by LingNoi · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wikipedia has a much better page available.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_computation_of_%CF%80

    2. Re:Update... by grouchomarxist · · Score: 1

      The PDF version http://numbers.computation.free.fr/Constants/Pi/piCompute.pdf of the page is up to date, but for some reason the html is behind. Also the PDF correctly displays the mathematical formula, while the html doesn't for me.

    3. Re:Update... by unixcrab · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They stopped updating it when it was very convincingly proven in the bible that pi is exactly equal to 3.

    4. Re:Update... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is pi?

      Mathematician: Pi is the number expressing the relationship between the circumference of a circle and its diameter.

      Physicist: Pi is 3.1415927 plus or minus 0.000000005.

      Engineer: Pi is about 3.

  6. Obviously a fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    They just took the number 3.14159 and added a load of random digits to the end - let's face it, nobody's going to check!

    1. Re:Obviously a fraud by fotoguzzi · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They just took the number 3.14159 and added a load of random digits to the end - let's face it, nobody's going to check!

      Reminds me of the MAX light rail station in the zoo tunnel in Portland, Oregon. Apparently there is the first 100 (1000?) digits of pi chiseled into one of the walls. A writer noticed that the first digits were correct, but quickly went astray. But later in the sequence, there was a recognizable early string of digits. The writer sleuthed that the sculptor had used the Book of Pi, which has the numbers in blocks of ten digits in five (or so) columns. In the book, you read the first row and then the next row.* The sculptor had read the first column, then the next column...

      * or the other way around

      --
      Their they're doing there hair.
  7. Are they exact? by VincenzoRomano · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How can we be sure all those digits are correct?
    And, more important question, what are they for?
    In all cases I faced so far, 355/113 provides a simple and nice approximation.

    --
    Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
    For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
    1. Re:Are they exact? by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 5, Funny

      How can we be sure all those digits are correct?

      Use it to draw a circle. If the circle ends up looking more square than round then you know they've made a mistake. Seriously, do I have to do everything around here?

    2. Re:Are they exact? by dido · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you want to prove that all the digits are correct, you only have to check a few things:

      1. There is a sound mathematical proof that the algorithm used in fact does generate the digits of pi, and
      2. The algorithm was coded correctly. This should be even easier to check, though likely more tedious.

      Now, what it's good for is a little harder. There is no physical application for such a highly accurate value of pi (39 digits should be sufficient to calculate the circumference of the known universe given its radius to within the diameter of a hydrogen atom). However, large numbers of digits of pi are useful as arguments in number theory, statistics, and information theory. For instance, there is no real proof that pi is a normal number, but as more digits of pi are found and the statistical properties of the digits are analyzed and shown to be consistent with the definition of normal numbers, that makes the conjecture that pi is actually normal a little closer to being true (see experimental mathematics).

      --
      Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
    3. Re:Are they exact? by infolation · · Score: 1

      I prefer the John Wallis version

      2 x ( 2/1 . 2/3 . 4/3 . 4/5 . 6/5 . 6/7 . 8/7 . 8/9 ... )

    4. Re:Are they exact? by grumbel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Knowing that the algorithm is correct and the implementation was codec correctly doesn't help you when you have faulty RAM that flips a bit.

    5. Re:Are they exact? by owlstead · · Score: 1

      "How can we be sure all those digits are correct?"

      Manual comparison. They read the first million or so digits aloud, and if those digits don't match the ones from previous programs then there is something wrong in the algorithm.

      "And, more important question, what are they for?"

      Comparison of size of course, people do that all the time. But in this case it's more about who is able to write the most optimal application than anything else.

    6. Re:Are they exact? by VincenzoRomano · · Score: 1

      ...

      That would take forever to calculate, I presume.

      --
      Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
      For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
    7. Re:Are they exact? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno, but 5 trillion digits of pi ought to be enough for anybody.

    8. Re:Are they exact? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (39 digits should be sufficient to calculate the circumference of the known universe given its radius to within the diameter of a hydrogen atom)

      [citation needed]

    9. Re:Are they exact? by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      For instance, there is no real proof that pi is a normal number, but as more digits of pi are found and the statistical properties of the digits are analyzed and shown to be consistent with the definition of normal numbers, that makes the conjecture that pi is actually normal a little closer to being true

      The problem with normality is that every digit, including the infinitely many that we haven't calculated (and the infinitely many that we never will) are equally significant. We are no closer to determining Pi's possible normality now than we were when we knew it only to 10 decimal places. There's still exactly the same amount of unknown information.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    10. Re:Are they exact? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > And, more important question, what are they for?

      If you need to ask this kind of question, you are not in the target audience. Please give back your nerd card.

    11. Re:Are they exact? by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      Or some kind of wierd, rare CPU bug. (I was going to mention ram bits getting flipped by cosmic rays and not error corrected, but you've basically covered that with the faulty RAM thing). Oh, you could also have a faulty sector on a hard drive/NAS that you are saving the result too. Or maybe a random network error that corrupts the data (if it gets transmitted over any kind of network). Maybe some wierd glitch in the Front Side Bus (or other hardware on the MoBo which interconnects things).

      There's all sorts of room for different kinds of hardware errors, basically.

    12. Re:Are they exact? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, do I have to do everything around here?

      Shut up bitch! Go fix me a turkey pot pie.

    13. Re:Are they exact? by doshell · · Score: 1

      How can we be sure all those digits are correct?

      You mathematically prove the algorithm is correct, and that the program faithfully implements the algorithm.

      --
      Score: i, Imaginary
    14. Re:Are they exact? by doshell · · Score: 1

      Sure, but you can run the computation twice on different hardware. It's highly unlikely (though not entirely impossible) that two hardware faults would produce precisely the same error.

      --
      Score: i, Imaginary
    15. Re:Are they exact? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      The circumference of the known universe is about 5*10^61 Planck lengths. So you'll have a hard time to verify more than 61 digits by measurement.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    16. Re:Are they exact? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good reminders from both of you guys.

      From TFS:

      Verification was done using two separate computers.

    17. Re:Are they exact? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3. The computation was not run on a pentium.

    18. Re:Are they exact? by Idbar · · Score: 1

      Knowing that the algorithm is correct, the implementation was codec correctly and you don't have faulty RAM that flips a bit doesn't help if your floating point operations decide to round up or down a single bit due to resolution. Checking the Chudnovsky algorithm it's hard for me to tell how to properly perform the ratio for large values of k. That's where "subtle approximation" begins.

    19. Re:Are they exact? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Knowing that the algorithm is correct and the implementation was codec correctly doesn't help you when you have faulty RAM that flips a bit.

      Esp. since it was a "desktop" presumably without ecc ram. Getting two other machines to verify the computation would seem to negate any concern though.

    20. Re:Are they exact? by jmerlin · · Score: 1

      You seem to have an infinitely poor understanding of mathematical infinity and probability.

    21. Re:Are they exact? by Taxman415a · · Score: 1

      If you want to prove that all the digits are correct, you only have to check a few things:

      1. There is a sound mathematical proof that the algorithm used in fact does generate the digits of pi, and 2. The algorithm was coded correctly. This should be even easier to check, though likely more tedious.

      Actually, 1 isn't very hard. It's known that the series expansion used approaches pi in the limit. If you mean each of the algorithms that they use to break down the Chudnovsky formula, then that's harder. 2 is the real kicker along with hardware errors as others have noted. Basically it was not fully verified that the coding was done correctly. How many things really have mathematically proven and truly 0 bug coding anyway? I don't think even medical or nuclear installations have that.

      But because of implementation and hardware errors these types of records are always done twice on different hardware or with different algorithms. That wasn't done here, instead they just checked a few digits with Plouffe's algorithm and claim that's good enough. Also they use a pi calculation app that uses an unpublished algorithm: "The Hybrid NTT is a currently unpublished algorithm ...".

      So there are various reasons to put an asterix next to this record at the least. It's still an impressive technical feat, it just would have been nice had they been more careful to iron out the details if they wanted to claim a world record.

    22. Re:Are they exact? by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      If you want to prove that all the digits are correct, you only have to check a few things:
      1. There is a sound mathematical proof that the algorithm used in fact does generate the digits of pi, and
      2. The algorithm was coded correctly. This should be even easier to check, though likely more tedious.

      No, that isn't practical or sufficient, and it's not how they actually did it. Proving nontrivial pieces of software to be correct is basically impossible, and really you'd also need to prove that the compiler was correct, the CPU was correct, etc. -- in fact, computation of pi is often used as a test of new hardware.

      Some typical methods that give good confidence in such a calculation:

      1. You're calculating pi using a series approximation. These series approximations typically come in families, with different series in the same family being implementable with the same algorithms and having similar performance. You calculate it using two different series, and verify that both series give the same result.

      2. You verify an identity. A typical example (which would not be practical for the actual calculation described in the article) would be to calculate tan(pi/4) using the Taylor series for tan(x), and verify that it equals 1.

      3. There are algorithms that can compute the nth digit without computing digits 1 through n-1. You can check selected digits against that.

      They actually used method 3 plus some other methods.

    23. Re:Are they exact? by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      So OEMs can put this trillionth digit Pi on upcoming hardware just so the PC's BIOS can check for bad ram?

      Even the captcha word today is 'applied!'

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    24. Re:Are they exact? by RulerOf · · Score: 1

      In all cases I faced so far, 355/113 provides a simple and nice approximation.

      Uhhhh... that gives 3.1415929204.

      The first 6 decimal places (141592) are correct, but that's it. Seeing as how you've memorized 6 digits anyway (355/113), why not just go for the gold and memorize the first 6-10 digits of pi anyway? I've got 3.1415926535 in my head... not that I EVER use it :P

      --
      Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
    25. Re:Are they exact? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, a very dumbed-down and unrealistic example:

      Suppose that for each digit of pi that is calculated, there is a 1 in 1 trillion chance that the hardware was faulty and produced an incorrect digit.

      Probability of 100% accuracy: ( .999999999999 ) ^ (3000000000000)

      Crunching those numbers gives about a 5% chance of 100% accuracy, in other words, according to the dumbed-down (but not so unbelievable) premises, there's a 95% chance that one of the digits is wrong.

    26. Re:Are they exact? by Hillgiant · · Score: 1

      I suck at drawing. Instead, plug it into the formula e^(i*x)+1 and see how close you are to 0.

      --
      -
    27. Re:Are they exact? by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Yes, it would certainly seem that way to someone with little understanding himself of infinity. I actually study maths at university, and last semester, a chunk of one of my courses was devoted to studying ordinal and cardinal numbers, whose entire invention was to rigorously define and study the many different types of infinity. I know, for example, that there are more infinities than any of our defined infinities can describe (which I think is pretty cool).

      But anyway, allow me to explain what I was saying. There are countably many decimals in any decimal expansion. Taking any finite number of elements away from a countable set still leaves you with a countable set, in fact, with the same number of elements as the original set. There are exactly the same number of digits of Pi undiscovered now as there ever was and (thanks to the finite capacity of our universe) as there ever will be (at least, restricting ourselves to brute force calculation).

      So, we know the first five trillion digits of Pi now. There are still countably infinitely many digits to go. In terms of calculating the value of Pi, it's fine to leave those digits calculated, since the first digits are far more significant than the subsequent digits. Each digit is 10 times more significant than the last! So even though, proportionally, we've calculated 0% of Pi's digits, we can still give a gratuitously accurate estimation of Pi.

      Now, with normality, we are trying to prove that, out of the total decimal expansion of Pi, each number from 0-9 occurs with equal probability in Pi's decimal expansion. That makes each digit, including the infinitely many that we haven't calculated, are equally significant. It is problems like this where the fact that we've calculated 0% of Pi's digits is actually significant. Given our current knowledge of Pi, there are infinitely many possibilities for, say, recurring arbitrarily long sequences of digits of 9s in Pi's expansion, which would destroy the normality argument.

      So, that was a lot of content for a content-less snark, but hey, who doesn't like talking about infinity?

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    28. Re:Are they exact? by dido · · Score: 1

      No one has a proof that the Riemann Hypothesis is true either, but practically everyone in analytical number theory seems to go around assuming that it's true anyway. There are similar efforts to calculate all of the non-trivial zeroes of the Riemann Zeta Function that are equally futile in making headway to proving the Hypothesis true. Would you also consider such efforts pointless? Well, they could succeed in proving the Hypothesis false by finding a zero away from the critical line, but nobody wants that...

      One other thing that may come out from statistical analysis of the five trillion digits would be that the digits begin to show a decided statistical bias away from what is to be expected were Pi normal. And then we'd have very strong evidence for believing that Pi is not normal, maybe almost enough to make a proof by counterexample. Frankly, I don't think this is likely, but it would be just as interesting if it were true.

      --
      Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
    29. Re:Are they exact? by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      The calculation of non-trivial zeros of the Riemann-Zeta function similarly does not bring us any closer to proof. I didn't say it was pointless. It's just that finite calculations where infinitely many calculations are required does not actually advance us, on its own, further to a proof. What calculation can do is give us some idea of a pattern, something to research, which would yield us a proof (and, of course, the possibility of discovering a counterexample).

      Similarly, calculating trillions of digits of Pi might aid some research, but there's currently no real evidence that Pi is normal or not (there's no "counterexample" disproof of normality, because normality is not a "for all" proposition; disproving normality requires serious proof). There is no "statistical bias", since we've calculated exactly 0% of Pi's digits. Pi has infinitely many digits, we've calculated a finite amount, and regardless of the size of that finite amount, it will be insignificant next to the full sequence of digits.

      Think about it, and what you know about probability. We know next to nothing (nothing?) about the probabilities of digits in Pi. We would have no idea, one way or another, what the 5 trillion and 1th digit would be just from studying the first 5 trillion digits. Knowing the first 5 trillion digits tells us nothing about the next 5 trillion digits, or the next 500 trillion digits, or the next 500 quadrillion digits. These numbers dwarf 5 trillion, and they're a puny appetiser of the ridiculously large numbers of digits that we could, in a theoretically unbounded universe, calculate Pi to. How can we claim to have evidence for or against normality? There are infinitely many sequences of 5 trillion digits, and for all we know, there may be a sequence of 5 trillion digits consisting of entirely 4s. That would completely invalidate all of our "evidence", and since it is an event with non-zero probability with infinite (for all we know; worst case scenario) independent trials, then the probability of its existence doesn't seem so small.

      Calculating digits is not enough to determine normality. What we really need, and what calculation of digits should be leading to, is more of an understanding of Pi, and its decimal expansion. That's the only way we can possibly capture Pi's infinite decimal sequence into a finite proof.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  8. Soon there'll be a competition to calculate... by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    ... how many digits someone will calculate Pi too each year.

    1. Re:Soon there'll be a competition to calculate... by Buggz · · Score: 3, Funny

      Moore's Law v2: the number of digits PI is calculated to will double every 18 months.

    2. Re:Soon there'll be a competition to calculate... by Dumnezeu · · Score: 1
      --
      Yes, it's sarcasm. Deal with it!
    3. Re:Soon there'll be a competition to calculate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It took him 90 days, so it could double in 6 months.

  9. Riddle me this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which has the better carbon footprint? Calculating pi out to the wazoo for 72 days, or baking an actual pie in a stove?

    1. Re:Riddle me this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pie should be cooked by the heat of the processors cooking pi.

  10. Huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why?

    1. Re:Huh by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Why?

      Why not?

    2. Re:Huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why?

      Why not?

      Why "Why?" and why "Why not?"?

    3. Re:Huh by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      To find the secret message of God, of course. :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    4. Re:Huh by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Funny

      segfault

    5. Re:Huh by Yaur · · Score: 1

      that ones headed to a stack overflow not a segfault.

  11. headless bird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    door sign
    gasman

  12. I don't write this question as a troll... by NoPantsJim · · Score: 1

    But I am legitimately curious what is the real significance of learning Pi to a more accurate measurement? I'm not a mathematician, physicist, or computer scientist.

    1. Re:I don't write this question as a troll... by ledow · · Score: 1

      Not a lot. Except to prove that your supercomputer is reliable when calculating numbers like that, and how fast it can do it. Usually, I think it's just used as a test of the computer's abilities rather than anything serious.

      Even in the precision engineering world, more than about 10 digits of accuracy for pi is a bit silly. Pi will never really, practically, be required in more depth than what your processor's registers can hold.

    2. Re:I don't write this question as a troll... by del_ctrl_alt · · Score: 1

      its to fit the round peg in the hole better

    3. Re:I don't write this question as a troll... by Lord+Lode · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hmm, I can think of an interesting and useful use of it: doing various statistics and randomness tests on those digits, finding patterns in their order, and so on.

      But I don't suppose that's what those contests to find the most PI digits are about.

    4. Re:I don't write this question as a troll... by quenda · · Score: 3, Funny

      what is the real significance of learning Pi to a more accurate measurement?

      The same as the damage a bulldozer would suffer if it were allowed to run over you.

    5. Re:I don't write this question as a troll... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HHGTG

    6. Re:I don't write this question as a troll... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Funny

      what is the real significance of learning Pi to a more accurate measurement?

      The same as the damage a bulldozer would suffer if it were allowed to run over you.

      The frustrating bit is that PI is available to 100 trillion digits in the local planning office on Alpha Centauri.

    7. Re:I don't write this question as a troll... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      There are a number of people that assert some meaning will be found in such natural numbers. It's one of the most basic ratios in existence, and more than one piece of fiction has asserted that meaning will be found in the digits. Such things add a curiosity to the number - will it ever end or ever repeat? could there be a message coded in it? But mainly it's a convenient computational benchmark.

    8. Re:I don't write this question as a troll... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "finding patterns" would be genuinely interesting, since we are pretty confident that Pi is a _normal number_

      (Normal numbers have all the possible digits occurring evenly in every base. If Pi is normal, then if you pick a decimal digit of Pi randomly, the chance of it being a 7 is exactly 1-in-10)

      We know that almost all real numbers are normal, but we don't have a proof that any interesting ones (including Pi) are, although if you get the first few hundred digits printed out and stare at them you'll agree it _looks_ pretty random.

    9. Re:I don't write this question as a troll... by pgdave · · Score: 1

      As the guys concerned say : 'Because we can'. It's the journey there, not the summit reached that they're interested in.

    10. Re:I don't write this question as a troll... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Yes, but 1/42th of those digits are wrong.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    11. Re:I don't write this question as a troll... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My take on this, is that Pi seems like one of the mathematical constants in the universe. To identify Pi absolutely is to move forward in our pursuit of defining the universe in absolute terms - to know what Pi is contributes to reducing the generality of this pursuit. Alternately, if Pi cannot be defined as a rational, finite number, then it is hoped that a pattern within Pi will reveal some insight into the pattern of the universe around us. It's kinda like sending a probe into space and reading the data it beams back - it may not reveal ALL the answers tot he questions we have, but it should give us some insight.

    12. Re:I don't write this question as a troll... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Such things add a curiosity to the number - will it ever end...

      No.

      > ...or ever repeat?

      Yes. It includes every string, including itself.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    13. Re:I don't write this question as a troll... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yes. It includes every string, including itself.

      I reject your assertion, because using that everything could be defined as being repeating even when it obviously doesn't. Such definition requires the word "repeat" to have no meaning. Since the word wouldn't exist if it didn't have a meaning, then you must be wrong.

    14. Re:I don't write this question as a troll... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I remember correctly, at 70 decimal places you can calculate the circumference of the observable universe to plus or minus the width of a hydrogen atom, so anything past about 75 decimal places is just showing off.

    15. Re:I don't write this question as a troll... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > I reject your assertion...

      Every finite string (including any finite number of repetitions of any finite string) must be in the part you have not yet discovered. The string consisting of all the digits you have so far discovered is a finite string. QED.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    16. Re:I don't write this question as a troll... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Containing some known string at some unknown point is not repetition. Furthermore, you've assumed that Pi is random. Prove that first if you are to assume it (or at least state you are assuming things that are unproven).

  13. Trillion? by Lord+Lode · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Trillion in which language? How many zeros does it have?

    1. Re:Trillion? by LingNoi · · Score: 3, Informative

      This page has more details, what I find interesting is that he needed 96.0 GB of ram to do the number crunching.

    2. Re:Trillion? by Lord+Maud'Dib · · Score: 0

      SI language. Trillion = 10^12

    3. Re:Trillion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      last time i checked, trillion was not a proper SI prefix.
      what you probably mean is "tera-", but in my native language a trillion is 10^18, which would be the "exa-" SI prefix.

      check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales

    4. Re:Trillion? by pgdave · · Score: 1

      Five trillion = 5,000,000,000,000 The British billion and trillion are dead. They never made much sense anyway. The UK deficit is thankfully, only an 'American' trillion pounds :0) And I say that as a Brit.

    5. Re:Trillion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the British billion actually. If you speak a language that is spoken in continental Europe chances are the number you wrote is 5 billion. There are exceptions of course. Still it's not really ambiguous in English.

    6. Re:Trillion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CPU Utilization: 861.45 % (since checkpoint)

      I wish my computer could be that efficent.

    7. Re:Trillion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, your native language is wrong. a trillion is 10^12

  14. Correct me if I'm wrong about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    But don't we have algorithms which let us calculate pi to an arbitrary number of digits? Well-known series methods computed using algorithms which have been tuned and re-tuned to the point where it's not really possible to make further major computational optimizations? Therefore this isn't so much a new accomplishment as it is "hey look, I left my pi calculating program running longer than the last guy" modified by the occasional minor optimization tweak and running on faster hardware?

    Okay, great, you now have a new more precise fixed value for pi. This means you can calculate things involving pi to precision even most physicists can't find a use for. I'm sure that's nice. Someone somewhere maybe has a use for it. Maybe this made that person's day. But is it really, really something that's newsworthy? And if hypothetical "needing pi to 5 trillion digits" guy needed it to that precision that badly - wouldn't he have already let the calculation run long enough to get it already if this particular calculation only took 90 days?

    1. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But don't we have algorithms which let us calculate pi to an arbitrary number of digits? Well-known series methods computed using algorithms which have been tuned and re-tuned to the point where it's not really possible to make further major computational optimizations? Therefore this isn't so much a new accomplishment as it is "hey look, I left my pi calculating program running longer than the last guy" modified by the occasional minor optimization tweak and running on faster hardware?

      Pretty much yes. It's more of an affection of "my computer is better (more expensive) than yours!" rather than programming or even design of algorithms. The limits are mostly the amount of money you want to spend for memory/storage and the running time of the program. It can be programming exercise for some people - however, a scientific advancement, it is not.

      Okay, great, you now have a new more precise fixed value for pi. This means you can calculate things involving pi to precision even most physicists can't find a use for. I'm sure that's nice. Someone somewhere maybe has a use for it. Maybe this made that person's day. But is it really, really something that's newsworthy?

      No, it's not. Personally, I would be far more excited if they used their resources to calculate SHA-1 rainbowtables, or to try and crack xyz-bit-RSA or anything else with, you know, at least some practical relevance.

      .

    2. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong about this... by KiwiCanuck · · Score: 1

      Exactly! Pi is the sum of an infinite series, and the series converges. Thus it is expected that number of digits in Pi ends. This is a quest for the last digit. No other reason, just the last digit.

    3. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a series approximation method. Pi is an infinitely long irrational number, i.e. it doesn't end and doesn't repeat. However, you can approximate it to an arbitrary number of digits using a series whose components are itself rational and thus can be calculated exactly.

      Hopefully you were just trying to be funny, but a lot of people don't know enough to be able to tune out that sort of misinformation. Makes it kinda unethical. And for people who already know better...it wasn't really all that funny.

    4. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong about this... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Pi is the sum of an infinite series, and the series converges.

      Yes.

      > Thus it is expected that number of digits in Pi ends.

      No.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  15. Windows?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how much faster it would go if they had used *NIX instead of Windows.

    1. Re:Windows?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how much faster it would go if they had used *NIX instead of Windows

      You'd have the potential to calculate it *much faster*, but you'd be configuring and tweaking for a few days to get it up and running while on windows you just had to click.

  16. They're doing it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    They're calculating Pi in base 10, which is the wrong path.

    Pi should be calculated in base 3.141593...

    It's a paradox, people.

    1. Re:They're doing it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calculate it in base-1: 111.111111111111111111111111...

    2. Re:They're doing it wrong by gringer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Pi should be calculated in base 3.141593...

      You're out on the 6th decimal digit (unless you're going to stop there). Pi is greater than 3.1415926 and less than 3.1415927.

      Have I been trolled?

      --
      Ask me about repetitive DNA
    3. Re:They're doing it wrong by guyminuslife · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. Your answer is 10.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
  17. Mathematical Masturbation by McTickles · · Score: 0

    In most cases you dont need more than 20 digits, doing more than that is a waste of computing power. Who the hell is going to use 5 bloody trillion digits of pi ? there is practical use for it... That said if it made Mr Kondo happy and it is the sort of things he enjoys doing I can only encourage him and congratulate him. After all in words of some great philosopher "it matters not how insignificant what you are doing seems, and it is important that you still do it"

    1. Re:Mathematical Masturbation by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There might actually be something interesting in there. Lots of discoveries have been made by people who were just trying things out or seeing what they could see.

    2. Re:Mathematical Masturbation by McTickles · · Score: 0

      Granted thats why I said it is still important that it be done. but for now I just don't see any use for it.

    3. Re:Mathematical Masturbation by Vryl · · Score: 1

      Put labour last in the senate, Aug 21

      Why?

      You think I should preference the Sceptics Party first? Or the Citizens Electoral Council?

    4. Re:Mathematical Masturbation by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Vote how you like. I am a Victorian so this is my Big Chance to vote Stephen Conroy out.

    5. Re:Mathematical Masturbation by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Most of what's done today is a waste of computing power. Anyway...

      First off, it's a simple test. A proving ground of sorts. It's also a good place for a programmer to cut his teeth on a lot of concept that he can relate to with other programmers since it is so wide spread.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    6. Re:Mathematical Masturbation by Vryl · · Score: 1

      Conroy is a twat, all agreed.

      I have already voted - did it today - sex party 1 in the senate...

      Certainly didn't put Labor last tho - there are seriously derange lunatics to preference well after Labor.

  18. Digit overload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've tried to write simple test programs to calculate PI up to some number of decimal places, but found that for each iteration of the calcuation, you end up having to track divisions that give results which are often recurring (example 0.333333333). These numbers end up having to be added to results from previous iterations and then you have all sorts of rounding problems, like where 0.3333... + 0.33333.... + 0.33333 doesn't add up to 1 and so on. Is there some kind of documentation available that advises on how to deal with basic arithmetic on (potentially infinitely recurring) floating point numbers?

    1. Re:Digit overload by ledow · · Score: 1

      Yes. Avoid floating-point.

      Either used fixed-point (yuck), symbolic calculations and then only finding the decimal expansion at the last stage, or rewrite your formula to avoid any possible lack of precision (i.e. any division).

    2. Re:Digit overload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or rewrite your formula to avoid any possible lack of precision (i.e. any division).

      Ha! Easy, I do it all the time... ... I always replace x/y by x * y^-1 :)

  19. Let me jot that down, sure to come in handy !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Little help! I've fallen under the weight of 5 trillions pencil lead digits and I can't get up.

    Speaking of 5 trillions. What is that exactly?

    5x10^12 or who?

  20. but can you ... by mikerubin · · Score: 1

    write it on the back of a Mazda 3?

    --
    I sat down to write a new sig tonight and all I did was make the chair warm.
  21. Aww. by jez9999 · · Score: 1

    When I read the title, I thought someone had successfully memorized 5 trillion digits of Pi. They just computed it? What a letdown.

    1. Re:Aww. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can recite as many digits of pi as you like...as long as you don't need them in order.

    2. Re:Aww. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For someone to recite 5 trillion digits (5.0e+12) at 5 digits per second would take nearly 160 years. How would you check it?

  22. Corrections follow... by dtmos · · Score: 5, Informative

    But don't we have algorithms which let us calculate pi to an arbitrary number of digits?

    Yes, we do. Mathematical algorithms, i.e., equations on paper.

    Well-known series methods computed using algorithms which have been tuned and re-tuned to the point where it's not really possible to make further major computational optimizations?

    Absolutely not. The algorithms have to run on practical, exists-on-the-Earth-today computers. Try to multiply two, million-digit numbers together on your laptop and you'll see what I mean. These achievements are all about computational optimizations. RTFA -- especially the sections entitled "Arithmetic Algorithms" and "Maximizing Scalability." Even the algorithm used for multiplication changes (dynamically!) during the program's execution, based on the size of the operands.

    Therefore this isn't so much a new accomplishment as it is "hey look, I left my pi calculating program running longer than the last guy" modified by the occasional minor optimization tweak and running on faster hardware?

    Not even close. The computations are so long, and so intense, that errors caused by hardware imperfections can be expected, so error detection and correction algorithms have to be added. If "I left my pi calculating program running longer than the last guy" it would not produce the correct result -- even if the data structures and algorithms it used were up to the task.

    But is it really, really something that's newsworthy?

    In a word, yes. Could you do it? It's a very, very difficult technical feat, one that required hardware powers and software abilities far beyond those of mortal men. Besides, you're worried about newsworthiness when the two previous /. articles are on wall-climbing robots and the popularity of video game arcades in New York?

    And if hypothetical "needing pi to 5 trillion digits" guy needed it to that precision that badly - wouldn't he have already let the calculation run long enough to get it already if this particular calculation only took 90 days?

    This isn't about needing pi to 5 trillion digits. This is about learning how to do large computations faster. Like, improving the state of the art.

    1. Re:Corrections follow... by orange47 · · Score: 1

      Try to multiply two, million-digit numbers together on your laptop and you'll see what I mean.

      pfft, I dont need laptop for that: 10*10^1000000=10^1000001
      :P

    2. Re:Corrections follow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > This isn't about needing pi to 5 trillion digits. This is about learning
      > how to do large computations faster. Like, improving the state of
      > the art, BITCH.

      T, FTFY.

    3. Re:Corrections follow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, there are a couple of nice points there.

      However, other parts appear to be incomplete / wrong. If you RTFA, it appears that they were focused almost exclusively on optimizing the system specifications - where the trade-off point is between faster RAM and more RAM being one of the main points. I'm not a computer scientist though, so maybe I missed something which you might want to pick out with more detail than RTFA (I already did). Because somehow I missed the part where they were using a new software approach - this looks to have been exclusively an exercise in hardware optimization done with existing software in response to an earlier attempt which stopped at 2.7 trillion digits. In short, they really did just leave it running longer...after doing some interesting systems optimization work.

      As to algorithms for calculating pi, we really do have well-known computational algorithms as well. For example, see chapter 22.7 in Press's "Numerical Recipes"...this is more or less the same approach used in y-cruncher, minus the optimization and error-checking steps. Your absolute statements about what is beyond the powers of mortal men seems to be a bit lacking on a few points...

    4. Re:Corrections follow... by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      It's a very, very difficult technical feat, one that required hardware powers and software abilities far beyond those of mortal men.

      Wait, are you saying that gods waste their days computing Pi to an arbitrarily high number of decimals?

    5. Re:Corrections follow... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      In a word, yes. Could you do it? It's a very, very difficult technical feat, one that required hardware powers and software abilities far beyond those of mortal men.

      Actually one of the remarkable things about it is that, while certainly not an ordinary desktop computer, the hardware used was not all that remarkable.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  23. HMMMMMMM PI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's A LOTTA Pieces of PI! SORRY

  24. what's the last digit of Pi by svoloth · · Score: 1

    what's the last digit of Pi

    --
    Eugenijus
  25. with achievements like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..isn't it a wonderful time to be alive?

  26. Still no pattern in there? by master_p · · Score: 1

    5 trillion digits are a *lot* of digits! no patterns yet in there?

    1. Re:Still no pattern in there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5 trillion digits are a *lot* of digits! no patterns yet in there?

      Only the occational 8721911!one1one!eleven!1981029. That is about it.

    2. Re:Still no pattern in there? by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      The message is there, but the decryption key is hiding out somewhere in e.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    3. Re:Still no pattern in there? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Right. For every message m there is certainly a subset of the digits of e which when XORed with a particular subset of the digits of pi reveals m.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    4. Re:Still no pattern in there? by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Technically, I believe that The Architects use 512 bit AES encryption.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

  27. Was there any pattern after 2 billion digits? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Just to be sure, have the sent the digits to the SETI program looking for patterns? There is some talk that beyond some 2 or 3 billion digits there is a message that apparently begins, "O Brhama, I have created Thee to build the universe, You shall create the universe in accordance to these Laws called Vedas...."

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Was there any pattern after 2 billion digits? by neminem · · Score: 1

      I thought that was, "help I'm trapped in a universe factory".

  28. My passwd by jandersen · · Score: 1

    Hmm, I'm not I like this. Has anybody considered the security impact of this? Pi being a proper irrational number is bound to have, as substrings of digits in it's decimal representation, all possible combinations of characters represented as eg. UTF-8, so somebody could easily find all passwords currently in use in there, lined up alphabetically. Somebody clearly hasn't thought this through.

    1. Re:My passwd by Opyros · · Score: 1

      Actually, nobody knows whether or not Pi is a normal number. It doesn't follow that it is merely from its irrationality or even transcendence.

  29. Time to sing some Pi carols! by RevWaldo · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it's not March 14th but for the occasion it seems fitting:

    It's a Wonderful Day for Pi

    Pi - full version / just the numbers

    .

  30. Pi Calculated to 5 trillion digits by Anti_Climax · · Score: 1

    So, is it still between 3.14 and 3.15?

    --
    Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
    1. Re:Pi Calculated to 5 trillion digits by Yaa+101 · · Score: 1

      It is even between 3.1416 and 3.1417

    2. Re:Pi Calculated to 5 trillion digits by mangaskahn · · Score: 1

      I think you're a little high in your estimate. 3.1415926 is definitely less than 3.1416.

      --
      Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.--Linus Torvalds
  31. Great information.http://www.jerseysshops.com/ ,nf by ptdybj · · Score: 1

    Great information.http://www.jerseysshops.com/ ,nfl shop is get many cheap nfl jerseys.

  32. Rationality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dont you think trying to do something like this is quite... Irrational?

  33. pi is Wrong by theritz · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://tauday.com/ I endorse the views expressed in above piece.

    1. Re:pi is Wrong by guyminuslife · · Score: 1

      You've convinced me.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
  34. Heh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this talk of pi is making me hungry....

  35. That hardware is not by LordAzuzu · · Score: 1

    ... a desktop computer? That's not a desktop computer. No one should call it desktop, even if it's in a $40 worth case.
    That's thousands of dollars worth hardware.

    1. Re:That hardware is not by camperdave · · Score: 1

      That's not a desktop computer. No one should call it desktop, even if it's in a $40 worth case. That's thousands of dollars worth hardware.

      Listen, kid. Average ordinary desktop computers used to cost thousands of dollars, and that was with no sound, no color, kilobytes of RAM and hard drives in about the 20 megabyte range.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:That hardware is not by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Listen, kid. 20MB hard drives used to cost thousands of dollars. Fancy desktop computers had dual floppies.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    3. Re:That hardware is not by camperdave · · Score: 1

      20MB hard drives used to cost thousands of dollars. Fancy desktop computers had dual floppies.

      I know. I just didn't want him to think I was pulling his leg.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:That hardware is not by LordAzuzu · · Score: 1

      As usual, OT trolling.

  36. Value of Pi by confused+one · · Score: 1

    But, my teacher said Pi is 22/7. Surely that's close enough.

  37. Memorizing Pi by rla3rd · · Score: 1

    While this is cool. It reminded me of this guy, who was able to memorize pi out to 22000 digits.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Tammet

  38. Re: Comfortably Numb by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2, Funny

    You set someone up there with a perfect Pink Floyd joke, but I can't find the best algorithm...

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  39. How is this stuff that matters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this stuff that matters? You'll get 10 trillion if the computer runs long enough. It's inevitable. This is about as newsworthy as second dot kernel releases.

  40. Here's What /. Readers Really Want by Zemplar · · Score: 1

    Direct link to the hardware (with photos)!

    Also, anyone else also notice the partially cropped off friend, it's not Clippy, on the final result screenshot?

  41. What was sitting on the desktop? by noidentity · · Score: 1

    Alexander J. Yee & Shigeru Kondo claim to have calculated the number pi to 5 trillion places, on a single desktop and in record time. The main computation took 90 days on Shigeru Kondo's desktop

    How big was this desk, and what was sitting on its top that was doing the actual calculation? It's odd to simply refer to a piece of furniture as doing the calculation.

  42. Meaningless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And this is totally meaningless Consider the actual definition of pi the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter; Can any circle actually be measured this exactly?

    No, all this is an exercise of numerical algorithm used to calculate pi.

  43. Print it out! by dpbsmith · · Score: 1

    The "world's fastest laser printer" prints about 60 ppm. At one page a second, 10,000 digits per page, it would take 500 million seconds or fifteen years to print it out. So one might hope to live to see all the known digits of pi printed out... unless those pesky computer scientists calculate more of them. But, really, 5 trillion digits ought to be enough for anybody.

    And it would only require a million reams of paper.

  44. Re:Update... chart character encoding by rduke15 · · Score: 1

    the PDF correctly displays the mathematical formula, while the html doesn't for me

    Yes, the HTML version appears to be encoded in the old Macintosh character set, and doesn't have a header specifying the encoding. To view it properly, change the encoding in your browser. In Firefox: View -> Character Encoding -> More Encodings -> West European -> Western (MacRoman).

    Alternatively, you can save it locally and convert it to UTF-8. If you have iconv, the command would be
    iconv -f MAC -t UTF8 -o piCompute-utf8.html piCompute.html

  45. That is one expensive single system by origin2k · · Score: 2, Informative

    Prices from Newegg and CDW (Newegg doesn't carry the memory)

    CPU(s) $3,446.30
    Memory $6,708.00
    MB $359.00
    Disks $3,599.84
    Disk controllers $1,058.00
    OS $659.00
    Case/Misc $500.00

    Total $16,330.14

  46. But when Spock Did it... by sv_libertarian · · Score: 1

    Insert obligatory Star Trek: TOS reference here.

  47. Re: Comfortably Numb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You set someone up there with a perfect Pink Floyd joke, but I can't find the best algorithm...

    Another Glitch in the Call
    (sung to Pink Floyd's The Wall)

    We don't need no indirection
    We don't need no flow control
    No data typing or declarations
    Did you leave those list alone?

    Hey! Hacker! Leave those lists alone!
    All in all, it's just a pure lisp function call.

  48. Cool. Now for some pattern searches. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    Cranking out 5 TRILLION places in Pi is. . , well, it's pretty staggering.

    But is anybody else planning to run some explorations through all that data? I expect somebody, somewhere is.

    Here's a fun experiment. . .

    Draw a picture of Batman on your Wacom, reduce it using some graphics algorithm to the shortest string of digits you possibly can, and search for that string in Pi. He's got to be in there somewhere. . . Probably there's a set of plans for, "How to build an awesome time machine", too.

    -FL

  49. Re: Comfortably Numb by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

    Tin ear. Poetry fail. The last line needs more syllables.

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  50. The number PI is a living being... by tomanoncow · · Score: 1

    Once you get past 2 quadrillion places...PI starts spitting out alphanumeric...the first occurrence is ...42531whogivesaflyingflapdoodle...

  51. Wait a sec... by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    So erm...what is the 5th trillionth digit of pi? Not to cast aspersions on such a brilliant piece of work...just curious (I for one, would like to know something Alex Trebek doesn't know).

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  52. Screenshot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone else notice what seems to be the legs of a skirt-clad girl at the top of the screenshot in the article? The researchers must have been awfully lonely those 90 days.

  53. PI@home? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They say there's an algorithm for determining the nth digit of pi. So why don't we have a big distributed network of volunteer computers keep calculating new digits of pi, and verifying answers against each other? Has this been attempted before for pi calculation?

  54. Re:Great information.http://www.jerseysshops.com/ by KPexEA · · Score: 1

    ^ = Spam account please delete!

    Also got my first story posted! Yippee!

  55. I've done better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well I calculated more digits of PI with my nvidia cuda program in 20 seconds. So take that!

  56. Re: Comfortably Numb by jd · · Score: 1

    I think the Pink Floyd adaptation would involve "Pi has become... comfortably numb"

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  57. Pi Server by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    Surely there should be, by now, a server out there somewhere continuously calculating and serving up additional digits of pi? The Web site art is obvious, of course.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  58. I just smashed the record again...... by dogzdik · · Score: 0

    5 trillion + 1

    --

    .

    Voting up, Voting down - If I really gave a fuck about your approval or not, I'd come and ask you.

  59. It's physical!!!1! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A year has "exactly" 1e7 * sqr(PI) seconds :P

  60. Re: Comfortably Numb by smitty97 · · Score: 1

    I can't explain, you would not understand. This is not how I am.

    --
    mod me funny