Slashdot Mirror
Pi Computed To 10 Trillion Digits
An anonymous reader writes "A Japanese programmer that goes by the handle JA0HXV announced that he has computed Pi to 10 trillion digits. This breaks the previous world record of 5 trillion digits. Computation began in October of 2010 and finished yesterday after multiple hard disk problems, he said. Details in English are not fully available yet, but the Japanese page gives further details. JA0HXV has held computation records for Pi in the past."
Is there any practical application to this sort of thing, either having the number itself, or whatever method this guy used to arrive at it? Or is this a thumb gazing exercise?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Kind of obvious to me, being one. Here is his info:
http://hamcall.net/call/JA0HXV
And although I'm not first, let me congratulate Shigeru on a job well done! Oh, and to the idiot complaining of all the wasted CO2, please turn in your geek/nerd card now: computing Pi (and e and...) is NEVER a waste! :P
Probably not nearly as much as other useless endeavors, such as playing computer games, updating facebook status, or watching super bowl. And reading slashdot, of course.
It looks to me like there is a mistake in the 34,518,296,721th digit. Could you repeat and compare please?
To decipher the math-speak on that page for the less mathematically inclined, here's my explanation of what a normal number is, geared towards a programmer.
Say you generated a number by randomly picking digits 0-9. After generating 100 digits, you'd expect close to 10 of them to be "7" (1/10). After generating 1000 digits, you'd expect about 100 to be "7" (1/10 again), but you'd expect only about 10 copies of the string "57" (10/1000 = 1/100), since there are 100 possible two-digit strings ("00", "01", ..." 99") and there are about 1000 length-2 substrings in a string of 1000 digits (999, to be precise). In general, for such a string of length N, we'd expect about 1/10th of the digits to be "7" and 1/100th = 1/10^2 of the substrings to be "57". If we made N very large we would also expect these estimates to get closer and closer to the truth.
You might get some strange abberations by random number generation. For instance, with astronomical bad luck you might generate 0 each time, and then your estimated fraction of "5"'s would be completely wrong. Still, the above properties are pretty good measures of how "well mixed" the digits of a number are, and they're taken (with mild generalizations) as the defining conditions of a normal number.
Specifically, for a given number x, imagine writing out its (infinitely many) digits in base b. Pick a substring of length m that you're interested in--say an encoding of Shakespeare's complete works in the original Klingon. In the first N digits, we would like to require the fraction of substrings matching our given string to be 1/b^m in analogy with the above (1/10^2 came about from b=10, m=2). That's too much to ask, so instead specify a small tolerance above and below 1/b^m. The key condition for normality is that if we look at the first N digits where N is larger than some number (which depends on the tolerances, the substring we picked, and x itself), the actual fraction of matching substrings will be within our tolerances of 1/b^m. A normal number is one where you can perform this operation in any base, with any substring, and with any tolerances.
If pi were normal, there would have to be at least one (indeed, infinitely many) occurrence of a given encoding of Shakespeare's works, since otherwise for N large enough the number of matching substrings would be near 0, and we could specify our tolerances to be between, say, 1/2 * 1/b^m and 3/2 * 1/b^m, which is strictly greater than the fraction of matches for N large enough since that fraction tends to 0, so it can't be within these bounds.
It's not too surprising that proving the normality of a number is much harder than believing it. Essentially, any number whose decimal digits appear "quite random" feels normal.
That's all well and good, but what about digits of tau?