Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Does the octillionth digit of pi exist?
90 views
Skip to first unread message
calvin
Mar 13, 2012, 10:33:50 PM3/13/12
to
If so, in what sense does it exist?
quasi
Mar 13, 2012, 10:44:19 PM3/13/12
to
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:33:50 -0700 (PDT), calvin
<cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>If so, in what sense does it exist?
In the sense that if you change the value of Pi in the
<cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>If so, in what sense does it exist?
octillionth place (leaving all other digits unchanged), the
new number could be too small by as much as one octillionth.
quasi
quasi
Mar 13, 2012, 10:48:13 PM3/13/12
to
It could be too small by as much as 9 octillionths.
quasi
Richard Henry
Mar 13, 2012, 10:50:31 PM3/13/12
to
On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 7:33:50 PM UTC-7, calvin wrote:
> If so, in what sense does it exist?
It's a 3
> If so, in what sense does it exist?
quasi
Mar 13, 2012, 10:57:26 PM3/13/12
to
It could be too small or too large by as much as 9
octillionths.
quasi
Tonico
Mar 13, 2012, 11:12:51 PM3/13/12
to
In the sense that given enough time, energy and will (of someone
checking stuff), a computer can calculate it in a rather easy, though
probably lengthy, way.
Tonio
checking stuff), a computer can calculate it in a rather easy, though
probably lengthy, way.
Tonio
calvin
Mar 13, 2012, 11:36:44 PM3/13/12
to
Yes to most of the above, but is there an octillionth
digit in some sense right now, before the work is done
to compute it (and thus for one to be in a position to
alter it)?
digit in some sense right now, before the work is done
to compute it (and thus for one to be in a position to
alter it)?
calvin
Mar 13, 2012, 11:45:13 PM3/13/12
to
maybe the digit has only potential existence,
and wondering if there is a mathematical
concept of potential existence?
quasi
Mar 13, 2012, 11:50:49 PM3/13/12
to
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:45:13 -0700 (PDT), calvin
<cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:36:44 PM UTC-4, calvin wrote:
>> Yes to most of the above,
There is no above -- you need to quote the message you are
<cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:36:44 PM UTC-4, calvin wrote:
>> Yes to most of the above,
replying to.
>> but is there an octillionth
>> digit in some sense right now, before the work is done
>> to compute it (and thus for one to be in a position to
>> alter it)?
>
>To be more clear (hopefully), I'm thinking
>maybe the digit has only potential existence,
>and wondering if there is a mathematical
>concept of potential existence?
whenever it's computed it will always come out the same.
Also, there are methods to compute a given digit of Pi
without computing all the prior ones.
quasi
calvin
Mar 14, 2012, 12:40:11 AM3/14/12
to qu...@null.set
On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:50:49 PM UTC-4, quasi wrote:
By 'the above' I meant all previous posts.
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:45:13 -0700 (PDT), calvin wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:36:44 PM UTC-4, calvin wrote:
> > > Yes to most of the above,
>
> There is no above -- you need to quote the message you are
> replying to.
> ...
> > On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:36:44 PM UTC-4, calvin wrote:
> > > Yes to most of the above,
>
> There is no above -- you need to quote the message you are
> replying to.
By 'the above' I meant all previous posts.
Tonico
Mar 14, 2012, 12:46:46 AM3/14/12
to
an existence as the existence of a shark in the Pacific Ocean UNTIL
you see one there, or as potential as the existence of a city called
Minsk until you visit it, or...
By rather basic calculus we know we can have sequences or series that
can approach the value of pi as accurately as we want, say...within
10^(-227) of the value of pi, which is way more accurate than what you
want, an approximation that thus will give us the octillionth
(whatever that is...is it like an 8 with 12 zeroes after it?) digit of
the decimal expansion of pi.
Tonio
Hauke Reddmann
Mar 14, 2012, 5:49:25 AM3/14/12
to
Tonico <Toni...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In the sense that given enough time, energy and will (of someone
> checking stuff), a computer can calculate it in a rather easy, though
> probably lengthy, way.
HA! But now assume we don't take the octillionth (much too
> In the sense that given enough time, energy and will (of someone
> checking stuff), a computer can calculate it in a rather easy, though
> probably lengthy, way.
small :-) but, say, the googolplexth number and our universe isn't
large enough to provide with the time, space and energy needed
for calculating it. Also, replace pi (much too orderly, we might
find a way to shortcut the calculation) by "the value of the
mid cell of the 110 cellular automaton at the googolplexth iteration"
or something incompressible like that, so the only way to
calculate is actually running it. Does it still exist?
--
Hauke Reddmann <:-EX8 fc3...@uni-hamburg.de
Out on deck the dawn arrived
Your grey sweater oversized
The rooftops glimmered before our eyes
Bill Taylor
Mar 14, 2012, 7:22:12 AM3/14/12
to
> but is there an octillionth
> digit in some sense right now, before the work is done
> to compute it
Yes.
> digit in some sense right now, before the work is done
> to compute it
Next question please.
Bill Taylor
Mar 14, 2012, 7:21:02 AM3/14/12
to
> Does the octillionth digit of pi exist?
Yes.
> If so, in what sense does it exist?
In the same sense that 42 exists.
Yes.
> If so, in what sense does it exist?
Bill Taylor
Mar 14, 2012, 7:23:32 AM3/14/12
to
> HA! But now assume we don't take the octillionth (much too
> small :-) but, say, the googolplexth number and our universe isn't
> large enough to provide with the time, space and energy needed
> for calculating it. Also, replace pi (much too orderly, we might
> find a way to shortcut the calculation) by "the value of the
> mid cell of the 110 cellular automaton at the googolplexth iteration"
> or something incompressible like that, so the only way to
> calculate is actually running it. Does it still exist?
Yes.
> small :-) but, say, the googolplexth number and our universe isn't
> large enough to provide with the time, space and energy needed
> for calculating it. Also, replace pi (much too orderly, we might
> find a way to shortcut the calculation) by "the value of the
> mid cell of the 110 cellular automaton at the googolplexth iteration"
> or something incompressible like that, so the only way to
> calculate is actually running it. Does it still exist?
I see we're getting the easy ones first.
Tonico
Mar 14, 2012, 7:29:22 AM3/14/12
to
On Mar 14, 11:49 am, Hauke Reddmann <fc3a...@uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
automaton iteration and etc. can be translated into one definite
ordinal, we can then even find out what it is.
Tonio
> Hauke Reddmann <:-EX8 fc3a...@uni-hamburg.de
> Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In the sense that given enough time, energy and will (of someone
> > checking stuff), a computer can calculate it in a rather easy, though
> > probably lengthy, way.
>
> HA! But now assume we don't take the octillionth (much too
> small :-) but, say, the googolplexth number and our universe isn't
> large enough to provide with the time, space and energy needed
> for calculating it. Also, replace pi (much too orderly, we might
> find a way to shortcut the calculation) by "the value of the
> mid cell of the 110 cellular automaton at the googolplexth iteration"
> or something incompressible like that, so the only way to
> calculate is actually running it. Does it still exist?
> --
**** Yes, and assuming all that mess of googolplexth, mid cellular
> > In the sense that given enough time, energy and will (of someone
> > checking stuff), a computer can calculate it in a rather easy, though
> > probably lengthy, way.
>
> HA! But now assume we don't take the octillionth (much too
> small :-) but, say, the googolplexth number and our universe isn't
> large enough to provide with the time, space and energy needed
> for calculating it. Also, replace pi (much too orderly, we might
> find a way to shortcut the calculation) by "the value of the
> mid cell of the 110 cellular automaton at the googolplexth iteration"
> or something incompressible like that, so the only way to
> calculate is actually running it. Does it still exist?
> --
automaton iteration and etc. can be translated into one definite
ordinal, we can then even find out what it is.
Tonio
> Hauke Reddmann <:-EX8 fc3a...@uni-hamburg.de
JEmebius
Mar 14, 2012, 10:32:14 AM3/14/12
to
42: the answer to end all answers.
42: the universal final answer to all questions, sensible and nonsensical, clever and stupid, wise
and foolish, to-the-point and vague. Four dimensions is enough.
"42" turns up everywhere, even in weird math-physical theories, like the hollow-earth theory
mentioned at http://jemebius.home.xs4all.nl/HollowEarth.htm .
Enjoy! - Johan E. Mebius
calvin
Mar 14, 2012, 11:15:34 AM3/14/12
to
On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 12:46:46 AM UTC-4, Tonico wrote:
> ... octillionth
> (whatever that is...is it like an 8 with 12 zeroes after it?) ...
1 with 27 zeros after it (10^27)
The progression is thousand, million, billion, trillion,
quadrillion, quintillion, sextillion, septillion,
octillion, ...
> ... octillionth
> (whatever that is...is it like an 8 with 12 zeroes after it?) ...
1 with 27 zeros after it (10^27)
The progression is thousand, million, billion, trillion,
quadrillion, quintillion, sextillion, septillion,
octillion, ...
Herman Rubin
Mar 14, 2012, 11:35:03 AM3/14/12
to
would be one in the 27th place.
It could be too small or too large by as much as 9
> quasi
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Ross A. Finlayson
Mar 14, 2012, 11:38:37 AM3/14/12
to
Plouffe discovered a function that gives you whatever digit of pi you
want without computing all the ones in the middle, a digit extraction
algorithm. This contrasts with a spigot algorithm that returns one
then the next etcetera. So you can find the function and put 8e12 in
it. You might find it easier to put in 16^21 than 10^21.
Frederick Williams
Mar 14, 2012, 12:27:29 PM3/14/12
to
calvin wrote:
Does the octillionth digit of pi exist? If all of these exist, then it
certainly does:
'0', '1', '2', '3', '4', '5', '6', '7', '8', '9'.
> If so, in what sense does it exist?
In the same sense as any other physical thing does.
--
The next few little actual people come from any much larger number of
different POSSIBLE perspectives.
George Green, aka GEORGE GREEN
Does the octillionth digit of pi exist? If all of these exist, then it
certainly does:
'0', '1', '2', '3', '4', '5', '6', '7', '8', '9'.
> If so, in what sense does it exist?
--
The next few little actual people come from any much larger number of
different POSSIBLE perspectives.
George Green, aka GEORGE GREEN
Aatu Koskensilta
Mar 14, 2012, 12:28:47 PM3/14/12
to
Frederick Williams <freddyw...@btinternet.com> writes:
> calvin wrote:
>
> Does the octillionth digit of pi exist? If all of these exist, then it
> certainly does:
>
> '0', '1', '2', '3', '4', '5', '6', '7', '8', '9'.
>
>> If so, in what sense does it exist?
>
> In the same sense as any other physical thing does.
You think digits are physical things?
> calvin wrote:
>
> Does the octillionth digit of pi exist? If all of these exist, then it
> certainly does:
>
> '0', '1', '2', '3', '4', '5', '6', '7', '8', '9'.
>
>> If so, in what sense does it exist?
>
> In the same sense as any other physical thing does.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Frederick Williams
Mar 14, 2012, 1:13:09 PM3/14/12
to
Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
>
> Frederick Williams <freddyw...@btinternet.com> writes:
>
> > calvin wrote:
> >
> > Does the octillionth digit of pi exist? If all of these exist, then it
> > certainly does:
> >
> > '0', '1', '2', '3', '4', '5', '6', '7', '8', '9'.
> >
> >> If so, in what sense does it exist?
> >
> > In the same sense as any other physical thing does.
>
> You think digits are physical things?
Yes.
>
> Frederick Williams <freddyw...@btinternet.com> writes:
>
> > calvin wrote:
> >
> > Does the octillionth digit of pi exist? If all of these exist, then it
> > certainly does:
> >
> > '0', '1', '2', '3', '4', '5', '6', '7', '8', '9'.
> >
> >> If so, in what sense does it exist?
> >
> > In the same sense as any other physical thing does.
>
> You think digits are physical things?
Martin Shobe
Mar 14, 2012, 1:49:06 PM3/14/12
to
short version.
Martin Shobe
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Mar 14, 2012, 4:16:09 PM3/14/12
to
> Yes.
digits are physical manifestations of number; for instance,
what is the canonical digit for base-one accounting?
incidentally, the algorithm to get any digit works,
only in binary; you can bet ont the result with a coin.
digits are physical manifestations of number; for instance,
what is the canonical digit for base-one accounting?
incidentally, the algorithm to get any digit works,
only in binary; you can bet ont the result with a coin.
konyberg
Mar 14, 2012, 4:55:09 PM3/14/12
to
KON
konyberg
Mar 14, 2012, 4:57:46 PM3/14/12
to
Transfer Principle
Mar 14, 2012, 4:59:24 PM3/14/12
to
On Mar 13, 7:33 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> If so, in what sense does [the octillionth digit of pi] exist?
In classical analysis, the nth digit of pi exists for every
natural number n -- although we may never find out what it is
due to insufficient memory.
> Yes to most of the above, but is there an octillionth
but I'm not sure about decimal.
Happy Pi Day, calvin! This is being posted to sci.math at
3/14 1:59 (i.e., Pi Moment) Pacific Daylight Time.
> If so, in what sense does [the octillionth digit of pi] exist?
In classical analysis, the nth digit of pi exists for every
natural number n -- although we may never find out what it is
due to insufficient memory.
> Yes to most of the above, but is there an octillionth
> digit in some sense right now, before the work is done
> to compute it (and thus for one to be in a position to
> alter it)?
There is an algorithm to find the nth binary digit (Plouffe)
> alter it)?
but I'm not sure about decimal.
Happy Pi Day, calvin! This is being posted to sci.math at
3/14 1:59 (i.e., Pi Moment) Pacific Daylight Time.
Transfer Principle
Mar 14, 2012, 4:59:33 PM3/14/12
to
Happy Pi Day, quasi!
Ross A. Finlayson
Mar 14, 2012, 5:43:33 PM3/14/12
to
On Mar 14, 9:28 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote:
Physical things? Numbers maybe. For example you could label each,
immutable thing and then have plain order statistics on them, the
arrangement would be a physical object. Then as far as is concern,
the outcome is of those numbers. Along with units they represent
interchange.
The Platonists might have them be real objects in their immutability
here 1 + 1 = 2. Dare I say, Ken: 2 + 2 = 4.
I was reading you the other day, it was pretty good, basically you
went forward with the constructive argument. Aatu.
> Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com> writes:
> > calvin wrote:
>
> > Does the octillionth digit of pi exist? If all of these exist, then it
> > certainly does:
>
> > '0', '1', '2', '3', '4', '5', '6', '7', '8', '9'.
>
> >> If so, in what sense does it exist?
>
> > In the same sense as any other physical thing does.
>
> You think digits are physical things?
>
> --
> Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi)
> > calvin wrote:
>
> > Does the octillionth digit of pi exist? If all of these exist, then it
> > certainly does:
>
> > '0', '1', '2', '3', '4', '5', '6', '7', '8', '9'.
>
> >> If so, in what sense does it exist?
>
> > In the same sense as any other physical thing does.
>
> You think digits are physical things?
>
> --
>
> "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."
> - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
It exists however much you use it. As a thing it is that thing.
> "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."
> - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Physical things? Numbers maybe. For example you could label each,
immutable thing and then have plain order statistics on them, the
arrangement would be a physical object. Then as far as is concern,
the outcome is of those numbers. Along with units they represent
interchange.
The Platonists might have them be real objects in their immutability
here 1 + 1 = 2. Dare I say, Ken: 2 + 2 = 4.
I was reading you the other day, it was pretty good, basically you
went forward with the constructive argument. Aatu.
Michael Stemper
Mar 14, 2012, 5:44:02 PM3/14/12
to
In article <efc94382-388c-4132...@x5g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>, "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.fi...@gmail.com> writes:
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
"Writing about jazz is like dancing about architecture" - Thelonious Monk
>On Mar 14, 8:15=A0am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 12:46:46 AM UTC-4, Tonico wrote:
>> > ... octillionth
>> > (whatever that is...is it like an 8 with 12 zeroes after it?) ...
>>
>> 1 with 27 zeros after it (10^27)
>>
>> The progression is thousand, million, billion, trillion,
>> quadrillion, quintillion, sextillion, septillion,
>> octillion, ...
>
>Yeah of course it does. I have heard that Bailey, Bourwein, and
>Plouffe discovered a function that gives you whatever digit of pi you
>want without computing all the ones in the middle, a digit extraction
>algorithm.
Do any of those exist for decimal representations?
>> On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 12:46:46 AM UTC-4, Tonico wrote:
>> > ... octillionth
>> > (whatever that is...is it like an 8 with 12 zeroes after it?) ...
>>
>> 1 with 27 zeros after it (10^27)
>>
>> The progression is thousand, million, billion, trillion,
>> quadrillion, quintillion, sextillion, septillion,
>> octillion, ...
>
>Yeah of course it does. I have heard that Bailey, Bourwein, and
>Plouffe discovered a function that gives you whatever digit of pi you
>want without computing all the ones in the middle, a digit extraction
>algorithm.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
"Writing about jazz is like dancing about architecture" - Thelonious Monk
Ross A. Finlayson
Mar 14, 2012, 5:47:07 PM3/14/12
to
Ross A. Finlayson
Mar 14, 2012, 5:58:26 PM3/14/12
to
On Mar 14, 2:47 pm, "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Yeah sure last I heard.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have not even verified the first ten thousand values or understand
the machinery of the algorithm, just having seen the formula(e), of
the Bailey Bourwein Plouffe pi digit algorithm.
However, I recommend looking into Plouffe's , he wrote me one time
after I pestered him, or maybe for him it wasn't a bother, Plouffe has
a huge web site with much more about it.
As I recall.
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have not even verified the first ten thousand values or understand
the machinery of the algorithm, just having seen the formula(e), of
the Bailey Bourwein Plouffe pi digit algorithm.
However, I recommend looking into Plouffe's , he wrote me one time
after I pestered him, or maybe for him it wasn't a bother, Plouffe has
a huge web site with much more about it.
As I recall.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Mar 14, 2012, 10:01:26 PM3/14/12
to
*what* position doesn't exist?
porky_...@my-deja.com
Mar 14, 2012, 10:34:40 PM3/14/12
to
In exactly the same sense the first digit of pi exists.
And while we're at it, Happy Pi Day to everyone!
And while we're at it, Happy Pi Day to everyone!
Frederick Williams
Mar 15, 2012, 11:53:33 AM3/15/12
to
1treePetrifiedForestLane wrote:
>
> > Yes.
> digits are physical manifestations of number;
That's what I thought. I very nearly replied "Yes of course." rather
>
> > Yes.
> digits are physical manifestations of number;
than just "Yes."
Bill Taylor
Mar 15, 2012, 10:04:49 PM3/15/12
to
> > digits are physical manifestations of number;
You can define your terms that way if you want,
but it is not so very helpful.
It is better to allow digits as being abstract objects,
of character type rather than numeral or number type,
(should these distinctions ever be relevant).
Then what is a physical manifestation of such a thing
is what it has always been - a bunch of ink grains or
lit phosphors, outlining an instance of the standard
representation of a character, numeral or number.
No wonder we mathies don't want to bother with
physicality, especially in this trivial sense!
-- Blustering Bill
** "The point of philosophy is to start with something
** so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with
** something so paradoxical that no one will believe it."
Frederick Williams
Mar 16, 2012, 7:39:01 AM3/16/12
to
Bill Taylor wrote:
>
> > > digits are physical manifestations of number;
>
> You can define your terms that way if you want,
> but it is not so very helpful.
>
> It is better to allow digits as being abstract objects,
> of character type rather than numeral or number type,
> (should these distinctions ever be relevant).
>
> Then what is a physical manifestation of such a thing
> is what it has always been - a bunch of ink grains or
> lit phosphors, outlining an instance of the standard
> representation of a character, numeral or number.
>
> No wonder we mathies don't want to bother with
> physicality, especially in this trivial sense!
That's a good point. Now GET OUT! Oh, and leave the cash box behind
>
> > > digits are physical manifestations of number;
>
> You can define your terms that way if you want,
> but it is not so very helpful.
>
> It is better to allow digits as being abstract objects,
> of character type rather than numeral or number type,
> (should these distinctions ever be relevant).
>
> Then what is a physical manifestation of such a thing
> is what it has always been - a bunch of ink grains or
> lit phosphors, outlining an instance of the standard
> representation of a character, numeral or number.
>
> No wonder we mathies don't want to bother with
> physicality, especially in this trivial sense!
laddie.
Hauke Reddmann
Mar 17, 2012, 2:00:17 PM3/17/12
to
Tonico <Toni...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 14, 11:49�am, Hauke Reddmann <fc3a...@uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
>> Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > In the sense that given enough time, energy and will (of someone
>> > checking stuff), a computer can calculate it in a rather easy, though
>> > probably lengthy, way.
>>
>> HA! But now assume we don't take the octillionth (much too
>> small :-) but, say, the googolplexth number and our universe isn't
>> large enough to provide with the time, space and energy needed
>> for calculating it. Also, replace pi (much too orderly, we might
>> find a way to shortcut the calculation) by "the value of the
>> mid cell of the 110 cellular automaton at the googolplexth iteration"
>> or something incompressible like that, so the only way to
>> calculate is actually running it. Does it still exist?
>> --
> **** Yes, and assuming all that mess of googolplexth, mid cellular
> automaton iteration and etc. can be translated into one definite
> ordinal, we can then even find out what it is.
Sorry for the mess, but I had to avoid that there is a way
> On Mar 14, 11:49�am, Hauke Reddmann <fc3a...@uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
>> Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > In the sense that given enough time, energy and will (of someone
>> > checking stuff), a computer can calculate it in a rather easy, though
>> > probably lengthy, way.
>>
>> HA! But now assume we don't take the octillionth (much too
>> small :-) but, say, the googolplexth number and our universe isn't
>> large enough to provide with the time, space and energy needed
>> for calculating it. Also, replace pi (much too orderly, we might
>> find a way to shortcut the calculation) by "the value of the
>> mid cell of the 110 cellular automaton at the googolplexth iteration"
>> or something incompressible like that, so the only way to
>> calculate is actually running it. Does it still exist?
>> --
> **** Yes, and assuming all that mess of googolplexth, mid cellular
> automaton iteration and etc. can be translated into one definite
> ordinal, we can then even find out what it is.
cheating around the question. In any case, I agree: suppose
the number foobar is not computable in universe A but in
universe B which happens to be a bit larger...so foobar exists
not in A but in B??...only a intuitionist on crack could
agree to that. (I'm a platonist.)
--
Hauke Reddmann <:-EX8 fc3...@uni-hamburg.de
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Mar 20, 2012, 2:02:17 PM3/20/12
to
Universe is always & only unit, although
diverse within itself.
diverse within itself.
Bill Taylor
Mar 21, 2012, 2:39:47 AM3/21/12
to
On Mar 21, 7:02 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Universe is always & only unit, although
> diverse within itself.
Atom.
wrote:
> Universe is always & only unit, although
> diverse within itself.
Michael Stemper
Mar 21, 2012, 8:56:58 AM3/21/12
to
In article <29cd9f2f-61dd-475c...@oq7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, Bill Taylor <wfc.t...@gmail.com> writes:
Totality.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
If this is our corporate opinion, you will be billed for it.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Frederick Williams
Mar 21, 2012, 1:20:52 PM3/21/12
to
1treePetrifiedForestLane wrote:
>
> Universe is always & only unit, although
> diverse within itself.
"Far away is close at hand in images of elsewhere."
>
> Universe is always & only unit, although
> diverse within itself.
--
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by
this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Mar 23, 2012, 3:29:16 PM3/23/12
to
only if it really wants to.
jgharston
Mar 23, 2012, 7:38:40 PM3/23/12
to
You haven't specified what base you want.
In base pi, the octillionth digit is 0.
JGH
In base pi, the octillionth digit is 0.
JGH
Phil Carmody
Mar 25, 2012, 8:30:16 AM3/25/12
to
quasi <qu...@null.set> writes:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:48:13 -0500, quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:44:19 -0500, quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:33:50 -0700 (PDT), calvin
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:48:13 -0500, quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:44:19 -0500, quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
> >
> >>In the sense that if you change the value of Pi in the
> >>octillionth place (leaving all other digits unchanged), the
> >>new number could be too small by as much as one octillionth.
> >
> >Oops. I meant:
> >
> >It could be too small by as much as 9 octillionths.
>
> Ugh, I'll get it right:
>
> It could be too small or too large by as much as 9
> octillionths.
Your iterative approach to posting does not appear to be
> It could be too small or too large by as much as 9
> octillionths.
convergent.
If you were to change Pi in the tenth place, would
pi be different by as much as 9 tenths?
Phil
--
> I'd argue that there is much evidence for the existence of a God.
Pics or it didn't happen.
-- Tom (/. uid 822)
quasi
Mar 25, 2012, 9:47:12 AM3/25/12
to
On 25 Mar 2012 15:30:16 +0300, Phil Carmody
My error was corrected by others about a week ago.
quasi
<thefatphi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>quasi <qu...@null.set> writes:
>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:48:13 -0500, quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:44:19 -0500, quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:33:50 -0700 (PDT), calvin
>> >><cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>If so, in what sense does it exist?
>> >>
>> >>In the sense that if you change the value of Pi in the
>> >>octillionth place (leaving all other digits unchanged), the
>> >>new number could be too small by as much as one octillionth.
>> >
>> >Oops. I meant:
>> >
>> >It could be too small by as much as 9 octillionths.
>>
>> Ugh, I'll get it right:
>>
>> It could be too small or too large by as much as 9
>> octillionths.
>
>Your iterative approach to posting does not appear to be
>convergent.
>
>If you were to change Pi in the tenth place, would
>pi be different by as much as 9 tenths?
Umm ...
>quasi <qu...@null.set> writes:
>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:48:13 -0500, quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:44:19 -0500, quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:33:50 -0700 (PDT), calvin
>> >><cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>If so, in what sense does it exist?
>> >>
>> >>In the sense that if you change the value of Pi in the
>> >>octillionth place (leaving all other digits unchanged), the
>> >>new number could be too small by as much as one octillionth.
>> >
>> >Oops. I meant:
>> >
>> >It could be too small by as much as 9 octillionths.
>>
>> Ugh, I'll get it right:
>>
>> It could be too small or too large by as much as 9
>> octillionths.
>
>Your iterative approach to posting does not appear to be
>convergent.
>
>If you were to change Pi in the tenth place, would
>pi be different by as much as 9 tenths?
My error was corrected by others about a week ago.
quasi
Phil Carmody
Mar 26, 2012, 3:47:53 PM3/26/12
to
anonymisers, a lot of people get killfiled.
Be thankful I didn't correct you three times.
0 new messages