Open Menu
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
lotide
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
Login

suck it, math nerds

⁨736⁩ ⁨likes⁩

Submitted ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨fossilesque@mander.xyz⁩ to ⁨science_memes@mander.xyz⁩

https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/79ed6ea9-1201-45f1-b9a3-94a018de47b6.png

source

Comments

Sort:hotnewtop
  • ns1@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    More likely a mathematician would correct you instead of crying. Pi is not infinite, its decimal expansion is infinite!

    source
    • zkfcfbzr@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Plus even that isn’t enough: 10/3 has an infinite decimal expansion (in base 10 at least) too, but if π = 10/3, you’d be able to find exact circumferences. Its irrationality is what makes it relevant to this joke.

      A mathematician is also perfectly happy with answers like “4π” as exact.

      Plus what’s to stop you from having a rational circumference but irrational radius?

      Writing this, I feel like I might have accidentally proved your point.

      source
      • danc4498@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Mathematicians taking a physics class and being told they have to round things. That’s when the tears start flowing.

        source
    • magic_lobster_party@kbin.run ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Its decimal expansion is finite in the base pi.

      source
      • Steve@startrek.website ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        1?

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • chillhelm@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      This is the correct answer. Pi is known. What it’s decimal expansion looks like is irrelevant. It’s 1 in base Pi.

      source
      • cogman@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Yup, similar to the square root of two and Euler’s number.

        These are numbers defined by their properties and not their exact values. In fact, we have imaginary numbers that don’t have values and yet are still extremely useful because of their defined properties.

        source
    • Carnelian@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      The actual punchline here should have been “there is no known equation to calculate the exact perimeter of an ellipse”, then sucking tears from an astrophysicist

      source
      • marcos@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Try it when you find some physicist that cares about exact values. Or when you see pigs flying over your head, both are about as likely.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • LanternEverywhere@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Exactly, a fraction is completely as valid of a way to express a number as using a decimal.

      1/2 = 0.5

      They're both fully valid ways to write the exact same quantity

      source
    • maniclucky@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      This was my first thought and then I realized I had been nerd sniped.

      source
  • bstix@feddit.dk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Easy. Take a wire that is exactly 1 meter long. Form a circle from the wire. The circumference of that circle is 1 meter.

    source
    • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      “exactly”

      uh huh. and how are you measuring that?

      source
      • lemmyman@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Now the engineers and/or scientists are crying

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • HopFlop@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        You don’t need to, it’s defined. (Lol). If you take a circle with a circumference of 1, then its circumference will be 1… I think I might have lost some braincells reading this.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I don’t have to measure it. I stick under glass and define it as the standard which all other measurements are derived from.

        source
      • bstix@feddit.dk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I will be measuring it in meters. One. There you go.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Plancks

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Laser Measure.

        source
    • exocrinous@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      A nanodegree of difference in temperature will change the length of the metal.

      source
      • bstix@feddit.dk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        And this why you don’t touch the thermostat.

        source
    • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Laser measure

      source
  • guywithoutaname@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Not true. If you define the circumference in terms of pi, you can define the circumference exactly.

    source
    • gmtom@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      “Find” not “define”

      source
      • GnomeKat@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Putting things in base 10 is also a definition. Digits aren’t special.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • HopFlop@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        That doesnt make a difference. You can find the exact circumference of a circle, you just cant express it in the decimal system as a number (thats why we have a symbol for it so you can still express the exact value)

        source
  • janAkali@lemmy.one ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Who said Pi is infinite? If we take Pi as base unit, it is exactly 1. No fraction, perfectly round.

    Now everything else requires an infinite precision.

    source
    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Eek, that makes my skin crawl. Taking what you said literally would imply that π² = π.

      source
      • ansorca@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        pi equals 10

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • otp@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I’m pretty sure a base-Pi counting system would mean that Pi is π, not 1.

        You’d count π, 2π, 3π, 4π, and so on. It doesn’t change reality, just the way you count and represent numbers.

        I might be off, but it’s definitely not π = 1.

        source
      • janAkali@lemmy.one ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        You still think in 1-based system, Pi unit * Pi unit is Pi of Pi units or 3.14159… Pi units. Also, Pi unit / Pi unit is 1/Pi Pi units or 0.318309886183790… Pi units.

        *Numbers written with digits are 1-based numbers.

        source
    • DrSteveBrule@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I’m confused, how is pi used as a unit? My understanding is that it’s a number

      source
      • nul9o9@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        6π is an acceptable answer for finding the circumference of a circle with a radius of 3 units of something.

        source
      • janAkali@lemmy.one ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        1 is also a number, a number we chose by convention to be a base unit for all numbers. You can break down every number down to this unit.

        20 is 20 1s. 1.5 is 1 and a half 1.

        If we have Pi as a unit, circumference of a circle would be radius*2 of Pi units. But everything that doesn’t involve Pi would be a fraction of Pi, e.g. a normal 1 is roughly 1/3 of Pi units, 314 is roughly 100 Pi units, etc. etc.

        source
  • Zerush@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Also Image

    source
    • seliaste@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Pi = 4! = 4×3×2 = 24?

      source
    • nachtigall@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Omfg why can’t I figure out why this does not work. Help me pls

      source
      • RandomStickman@kbin.run ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I think it's because no matter how many corners you cut it's still an approximation of the circumference. There's just an infinite amount of corners that sticks out

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • Zerush@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        It’s a fractal problem, even if you repeat the cutting until infinite, there are still a roughness with little triangles which you must add to Pi, there are no difference between image 4 and 5, the triangles are still there, smaller but more. But it’s a nice illusion.

        source
      • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Because you never make a circle. You just make a polygon with a perimeter of four and an infinite number of sides as the number of sides approaches infinity.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        youtu.be/VYQVlVoWoPY

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      The lines in this are askew and it’s mildly annoying

      source
      • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        They’re there to askew why the logic doesn’t work.

        source
    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      That approach works for area but not for perimeter, because cutting off the corners gives you a shape whose area is closer to the circle’s, but it doesn’t change the perimeter at all.

      source
    • Dippy@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Does this work with triangles too?

      source
  • UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Let’s say you got a circle with radius 1/π…

    source
    • FiskFisk33@startrek.website ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      came here for this

      source
  • Dippy@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Nasa uses 15 digits of pi for solar system travel. And 42 digits is enough to calculate the entire universe to atomic accuracy

    source
    • Malgas@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      And 65 digits is sufficient to calculate the circumference of the visible universe to within a Planck length.

      source
      • Scribbd@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        We need MOAR precision!

        source
      • dukk@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I know enough digits of pi to calculate the circumference of the universe??

        source
  • amio@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Yeah, calling pi infinite makes me wanna cry, too.

    source
    • Artyom@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      If only mathematicians had a number for that. Ya know, the ones famous for making names for things on average once per published paper, most of them completely useless.

      source
  • LordOfLocksley@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Not if your diameter is d/pi. Then your circumference is d, where d > 0.

    Check mate atheists.

    source
    • groet@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Well now you can’t find the radius

      source
      • LordOfLocksley@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Radius = d/(2*pi)

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • ladicius@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Check mate matheists.

      Ftfy.

      source
  • UsernameIsTooLon@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Technically you can’t measure anything accurately because there’s an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 0. Whose to say it’s exactly 1? It could be off by an infinite amount of 0s and 1.

    Achilles and the Tortoise paradox.

    source
  • ooterness@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Jokes on them, tears are too salty to provide hydration.

    source
  • lowleveldata@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The circumference of a circle with a diameter of 1 cm is exactly π cm. There you have it.

    source
  • idiomaddict@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    m e a s u r e

    source
    • KidnappedByKitties@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Bah, the universe is too messy and disordered to be worth the trouble

      source
  • JoYo@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Besides measuring it with a measuring tape.

    source
  • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Pi is 3.

    source
    • Chadus_Maximus@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Ah, the Euler identity. 3^i^3-1=0

      source
      • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Rofl :D Well, close enough, and about as sexy when a bit drunk.

        source
  • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Ahem. MathEmaticians.

    source
  • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Prove it.

    source
  • Daft_ish@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    And you can’t trust anything calculated either an imaginary number. Common guys, it’s right there, it’s imaginary like the totally not AI person I’m pretending to be.

    source