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."

11 of 414 comments (clear)

  1. What Does This Mean? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:What Does This Mean? by Rizimar · · Score: 5, Funny

      I believe that the correct term is "mathsturbation"

    2. Re:What Does This Mean? by FrootLoops · · Score: 4, Informative

      The only practical application I've ever heard of for projects like this is as an integrity check on new supercomputers. They compute the first X digits of pi and then compare it to a known result which someone computed and verified earlier.

      On a completely separate note, it's "pi", not "Pi". The Greek letter used is lowercase, and the standard English version is similarly lowercase.

    3. Re:What Does This Mean? by FrootLoops · · Score: 5, Informative

      (Also, supposedly, to determine if PI is actually infinite or whether it contains a repeating pattern after you get to a certain point)

      What? There's a mathematical proof that pi is irrational (in fact, transcendental). Specifically, if it were not, -1 would be irrational (in fact, transcendental) thanks to the Lindemann-Weierstrass theorem and the fact that e^(pi*i) = -1. The digits cannot simply start repeating after a while (in particular, they cannot eventually just become 0, as happens with, for instance, 1/2 = 0.5000... .

    4. Re:What Does This Mean? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Informative

      The radius of the part of the universe visible to us is about 46 billion light years or about 4*10^26 meters. The planck length, assumed to be the shortest length there is, is about 1.6*10^-35 meters. That is, the radius of the known universe is 2.7*10^61 planck lengths. Thus with just 62 digits of pi you are as accurate as the laws of physics allow. In practice you'll never need even that. Indeed, you'll not even measure cosmic distances to the meter (27 digits), or even to the kilometer (24 digits). Even measuring to the light year (12 digits) is probably impossible for objects that far out.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    5. Re:What Does This Mean? by nacturation · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you memorize up to the first zero in pi, you can navigate the circumference of the universe in a perfect circle and when you get to the end of the circle (based on the digits of pi you memorized) you'll be off by less than the width of a human hair.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    6. Re:What Does This Mean? by nacturation · · Score: 5, Funny

      How irrational of me.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    7. Re:What Does This Mean? by Dogtanian · · Score: 4, Funny

      I believe that the correct term is "mathsturbation"

      Given that Pi never ends, could we also call it "onanonanonanonanism"?

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    8. Re:What Does This Mean? by fatphil · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's not useless for those interested in computational efficiency with huge datasets. (Things like weather modelling, climate modelling, nuke aging analysis, fusion research, etc.)

      If you look at a naive theoretical model for a computer, then you would predict that certain classes of algorithms would be most efficient for calculating digits of pi. (These algorithms use huge FFTs in order to do bignum arithmetic.) Several world records were broken using this technique. However, as the problem size grew, the FFTs started to become impractical, as the communication overhead started to dominate, and eventually algorithms that didn't have such a communication overhead became favoured. Better models of computational efficiency were arrived at, and new records were broken. We now understand time/space trade-offs better.

      However, your loaf of bread won't be cheaper because of this, nor will the number of homeless on the street decrease.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
  2. Re:Electricity usage by Arlet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:What's the message? by FrootLoops · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.