Talk:Pi/Archive 5

message: As per semi-protection policy this is no longer the 'only reasonable option left to deal with vandalism.'  It's been semi-protected since 14th January.  I'm putting a request in to remove this here.   The18thDoctor 13:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove semi-protection

message: Just a few suggestions I have for this article -- some major, others minor.
#What is the source for the assertion that "The constant is named "π" because it is the first letter of the Greek words περιφέρεια 'periphery' and περίμετρος 'perimeter', i.e. 'circumference'"?
#Do we really need to know what Unicode character is used to represent the greek letter pi? That material would be more appropriate for a different article.
#"The exact value of pi has an infinite decimal expansion" needs to be reworded. The value of pi does not have an infinite decimal expansion -- the number has an infinite decimal expansion. At least that's what I'd say.
#The second method for approximating pi should include the term "lattice point" somewhere.
#The paragraph on the Biblical "approximation" of pi needs to be reworded (and sourced). It's almost unintelligible.
#"For many purposes, 3.14 or 22/7 is close enough" should probably not mention 22/7, since it fits better in the context of the next sentence, which discusses fractional approximations rather than decimal approximations.
#Most of the formulae involving pi need to be diked out and inserted into either Computing pi or List of formulae involving pi. 
#*The section Continued fractions exists in Computing Pi, should we remove it here? Deathbob 17:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not clear that that section is relevant at computing pi. Are anyone seriously using the systematic continued fractions to approximate pi? I would have pegged them as merely "interesting properties". –Henning Makholm 19:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendations 

message: In the article lead, it says "The mathematical constant π is an irrational real number".  Shouldn't that be "... transcendental real number"?  It is mentioned 'way below, but I think it should be highlighted up front.
(If the page were not semi-protected I would just go ahead and change it, but I cannot be bothered to try to remember my wikipedia password for this.) -- 72.130.182.201 03:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcendental, not just irrational 

message: For me, it seems that the articles "History of Pi" and "Pi" is a little unclear about the creator of
::\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{n}}{2n+1} = \frac{1}{1} - \frac{1}{3} + \frac{1}{5} - \frac{1}{7} + \frac{1}{9} - \cdots = \frac{\pi}{4}
In "pi" it is just stated that "Leibniz' formula (proof): [the expression]" while in the article "History of Pi" Madhava of Sangamagrama is credited. One might intepret (if only reading the "Pi"-article) Leibniz as the creator. Perhaps this needs to be changed somehow - or am i missing something? Sorry for the bad English. --Bilgrau 22:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gottfried Leibniz or Madhava of Sangamagrama? 

message: I can't edit this page! Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaunt (talk • contribs) 
:This page is semi-protected, meaning that only established users can edit it. An established user is one who has an account 4 days old. It seems your account is currently only 1-2 days old, so you will have to wait a few days in order to edit this article. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What? 

message: I have a different perception of what Pi is and its' "relativity" to Radius. I attribute Archimedes with greater concern for precision than Mathematic's interpretation of Pi r2 gives him. Archimede's Principle is Perfect and Precise when his Principle is correctly perceived. Archimede's Principle gives a Circle exact equivalence with any "Line Shape"  The key is in the Transformation of Shapes. Misperception = 2500 years of Misconception. 
 
Archimedes Principle when correctly Perceived results in this.
A circumference is 8 times the Radius or 4 times the Diameter. 
I can prove this through Transformation of a known length. 
Test it. It must be tested with other than Pi r2 because as I stated Pi r2 is a misperception of his intent, ergo imprecise. I will not answer email. Post queries here. 
--Layman1 12:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're basically saying that the value of \pi = \frac{circumference}{diameter} isn't 3.14… but 4, right? Well, I'd really love to see your proof for that, but this isn't the right place to discuss this. This place is for discussing the article and not for discussing your original research. I propose that you either provide a reliable source for your statement (and I cannot imagine you find one) or move this discussion to your talk page. I will watch it. — Ocolon 13:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but I can prove that pi < 4. Consider the Leibniz formula. Note that the series is an alternating series of terms of strictly decreasing magnitude to 0, so the result of the series is strictly between any two consecutive partial sums. Thus, we see that 2/3 < pi/4 < 1, whence 8/3 < pi < 4. Eric119 16:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Layman1 would argue here that Leibniz' formula describes a \pi that is distinct from the \pi defined as ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. He's basically saying that the black line describing the circle in the image is just as long as the outline of the square it is contained in. Not more and not less. — Ocolon 16:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If no one objects, I'd like to remove this section. I'd hate it to be associated with Wikipedia. Suffice it to say that humans know a fair bit about circles, and this is definitely not worth discussing. Glooper 02:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you propose to remove this talk page section, I definitely object. We have a commitment to truth and goodness as regards the encyclopedic pages, but there is no point to censoring a talk page simply because the original poster spoke nonsense. It will get archived eventually and does no harm until then. –Henning Makholm 00:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, OK. Sorry, I just figured it was taking up space that could be used for something serious or intelligent. Glooper 04:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misperception = 2500 years of Misconception.  

message: It looks like the technical problems that made naming this page π have been solved (as evidenced by π (film)).  Should this page be moved to π now that it will no longer look like it is titled Π?  (I'd say yes.) -- JHunterJ 12:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That article is actually named Π (film) and has a  template that uses javascript to change the title to lowercase when it is displayed.  This works around a symptom of the technical problem but does not solve it; it is still not possible to have separate articles for Π and π. I don't care what the article is titled, frankly, so long as it has something to do with π. CMummert · talk 13:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just π by itself is problematic; the letter has too many other uses. But I wouldn't necessarily be against a move to π (mathematical constant) (on the model of e (mathematical constant)). --Trovatore 07:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The mathematical constant e is a lot less known than pi.  I would prefer to see it left as pi and redirect from π. 199.125.109.27 16:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: I can edit Pi! Jaunt 15:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations! 84.229.139.208 21:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finally! 

message: A rather odd topic I knoe,  but does anyone know the square root of Pi?--Kevin mills 00:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's √π.  If you want something with digits, a Google search on sqrt(pi) "sqrt(pi) = 1.77245385". -- JHunterJ 00:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep. The square root of π is the positive solution to the equation x^{2}=\pi, which is usually denoted \sqrt{\pi}. Decimal digits are listed as sequence A002161 in the OEIS. — Ocolon 07:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It might also be of interest that \sqrt{\pi}=\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e^{-x^2}\mathrm{d}x. See Gamma function, Normal distribution — Ocolon 13:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Square root. 

message: This might seem obvious but more should written in this article about how pi was first derived by Pythagoras. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.248.72 (talk • contribs).
:Pythagoras? I'm afraid you are confusing this with something else. See the history section on π for more information. — Ocolon 16:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Were you thinking of the Pythagorean theorem? --LuigiManiac 16:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Origin of pi 

message: I am quite concerned about the accuracy of the example poem in mnemonics.
It appears that you use the number of syllables to remember the next number, so I will break the example phrases into syllables below:
How I need a drink, al-co-ho-lic in na-ture, af-ter the hea-vy lec-tures in-vol-ving quan-tum me-chan-ics.
How I need a drink, al-co-ho-lic of course , af-ter the hea-vy lec-tures in-vol-ving quan-tum me-chan-ics.
:Notice that "in nature" and "of course" have a different number of syllables.
:Is this a problem, or am I just imagining it? Freedomlinux 00:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does the number of syllables have to with remembering the next number? It's the number of letters that's used to determine the current number. -- JHunterJ 00:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mnemonics 

message: Please do not change the link to state it is 4 MB. I own this page, and I can guarantee you that (at maximum) only 2MB of bandwidth are transferred when this page is viewed. Yes, I know that 4 million digts = 4 million bytes = (about) 4 MB. Due to the nature of dumping the huge amount of traffic for this page, the digits are gzipped and the script requests for the browser to use compression. If the browser does not accept compression, only the first 100 digits or so are used. If the browser does support compression, then 1,993.21 KB (2,041,048 bytes) are used. You can verify this yourself (using firefox) by visiting the site and then right clicking the document and selecting "View Page Info."
--Ahsile 19:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digits (Link to first 4 million) 

message: This section has almost no reference. And in the sentence:
"The Indian mathematician and astronomer Madhava of Sangamagrama in the 14th century computed the value of π after transforming the power series expansion of π⁄4 into the form"
What is the power series expansion of π⁄4? 
The series below that sentence comes from the power expansion of the arctan evaluated at 1/sqrt(3) giving Pi/6. But maybe he used another method. Can someone check it? Ricardo sandoval 21:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early approximations section 

message: --Foljiny 21:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would require 400MB of data transferred to your computer, so I think "downloadable" is the more appropriate term. I am not familiar with any of those, however. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A program that is readily available on a personal computer that can calculate pi to billions of places seems to be a suitable alternative. 199.125.109.11 19:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it's  PiFast but this calculation would take longer than downloading it  This is the site I found for 4.2 Billion digits SuperMarioBrah 01:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there any document on the web that has a viewable 1 billion digits of Pi? 

message: The world record info in this section is different from Piphilology#History.--mikeu 02:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  memorizing digits 

message: Sorry to be a nitpicker (but hey, this is math):  The article states, "William Shanks [. . .]  spent over 20 years calculating π to 707 decimal places (accomplished in 1873). In 1944, D. F. Ferguson found that Shanks had made a mistake in the 528th decimal place, and that all succeeding digits were incorrect."
If pi's digits are "random" and independent (apparently a good approximation), then the probability that 1 digit chosen at random is wrong is ~ 9/10, and the probability that 707-528 = 179 such digits are wrong is ~ (9/10179 ~ 6.4 × 10-9. (Also, whichever digits were incorrect very likely still are.)Daqu 19:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about just changing it to "... were irrelevant" (meaningless, moot, etc.). -- JHunterJ 20:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agreed. AlexTiefling 08:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so fast.  If you are quoting D. F. Ferguson it would be ok to quote him.  It also would be better to compare the 179 digits to see if they were all wrong, randomly wrong, or even all right.  Has anyone taken the time to do that? I would suggest changing it to say "and most of the succeeding digits were incorrect". 199.125.109.27 16:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "''All'' the succeeding digits were incorrect" ???

message: What happened to this? I readded a See Also; but we really should have a sentence in text, as a preventative to all the erroneous versions of the incident on the web. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Indiana Pi Bill]]

message: It is important to note that today engineers just hit the pi key on their calculator to use 10 digits of pi.  When pocket calculators replaced slide rules for engineering, run of the mill calculations suddenly jumped from 2 or 3 digit accuracy to 10 digit precision (not accuracy), fundamentally changing engineering.  While most engineers round off their calculated results to a meaningful accuracy (sometimes plus a few digits for good measure), it is common to see students foolishly include all ten digits.  How about adding something like, "prior to the advent of pocket calculators" or "Today's engineers normally use the pi key on their calculator (10 or 12 digit accuracy)." 199.125.109.3 19:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numerical approximations 

message: Rational numbers are of course numbers which can be expressed as a ratio, or fraction. Pi is defined as A/r², which is a fraction. Is pi therefore rational?
71.207.86.54 20:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Rational numbers can be expressed as a ratio of two integers. -- JHunterJ 20:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By definition, in the equation π = A/r2, at least one of A and r will be irrational - transcendental, in fact. AlexTiefling 08:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, not by definition. It's a theorem.--agr 11:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, we need proof.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What a horrible approximation.  Using 6 digits you end up with 3 significant digits.  At least with 22/7 by using 3 you get 3, and with 355/113 you use 6 and get 7. 199.125.109.11 04:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree this approximation method is unsatisfactory, the truth is that it gives 3 significant digits (it just amounts to 3.14). -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 11:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not nice, quietly fixing the above making everyone (myself included) think I've gone crazy. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pi=rational? 

message: 37.68/12
Many users have confined this equation as pi, why not put it on early approximations?
You need proof? Tell me here.
Goldkingtut4 20:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we need proof.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What a horrible approximation.  Using 6 digits you end up with 3 significant digits.  At least with 22/7 by using 3 you get 3, and with 355/113 you use 6 and get 7. 199.125.109.11 04:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree this approximation method is unsatisfactory, the truth is that it gives 3 significant digits (it just amounts to 3.14). -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 11:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not nice, quietly fixing the above making everyone (myself included) think I've gone crazy. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  37.68/12 

message: In the claim "This means that there is no polynomial with rational coefficients of which π is a root" should the word "non-zero" be added before "polynomial"? Jayme 12:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This means that there is no polynomial with rational coefficients of which π is a root 

message: Unicode has a code point for "Greek Pi" at 03D6: ϖ, which is an omega (ω) with an overbar. It may be useful to mention this in the section where the representation of pi is discussed but I don't know the proper usage for this symbol in Greek. --B.d.mills 02:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have known mathematicians and physicists who use this symbol, and call it "pomega".  (They're not Greek.) -- Coneslayer 15:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Unicode name of this character is "Greek pi symbol" ϖ as opposed to "Greek small letter pi" π.  The word "symbol" in its name is significant: it means that it is used as a technical symbol, and not as a letter of the alphabet. This is similar to the variant forms of φ: Greek phi symbol ϕ vs. Greek small letter phi φ. In both cases, they are simply variant (cursive) graphic forms which some mathematicians use as distinct symbols.  In particular, ϖ really has nothing to do with omega except its superficial appearance; its interpretation as "an omega with an overbar" is just typographical abuse improvisation.... --Macrakis 16:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pi in the Greek language 

message: Click this link for a song about pi. Funny. Gray94wolf 15:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pi... 

message: I guess a lot of people will try to change it back to "exactly equal to 3" because of this post: http://digg.com/general_sciences/Teach_the_controversy_Pi_3_0_textbook_stickers_included ... :( ebi 23:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good one (from that link): "Be happy they rounded it. Otherwise the bible would never end." I can see it now: "today's reading continues on from last week's: "720589365290934857620349576620003898576099475908401909288455767692229933880" Gzuckier 15:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Should the article mention the disagreement with the bible ? I think so. ._-zro tc 07:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The apparent disagreement is already discussed. The standard explanation (measurements on the outside and inside), which is supported by other calculations, is presented; Another explanation mentioned is that the circumference really is 30 cubits, with the diameter being 9.55, rounded to 10. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 08:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure the ancient Hebrews had the concept of the decimal point, so it would have been hard for them to express pi. Even as a fraction; "Three plus about the seventh part of ..."Gzuckier 14:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Duly noted. My bad. ._-zro tc 22:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expect frequent vandalism.. :( 

message: numerical value the first 60 didgets of pi contain an error
its actually 3.14159265358974323846264338327905028841979399375105820974544
in the first 50 didgets written on th page you are missing a 0
:Your value and the actual value:
 3.1415926535897432384626433832790502884197  9399375105820974544
 3.141592653589793238462643383279 50288419716939937510
                ^                ^         ^^
:There are several errors in the source you're using, but the "missing" 0 on this article should remain missing; the second number (ignoring the spaces) is correct. -- JHunterJ 11:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Error?

message: I believe that the following iterative formula calculates the value of pi very quickly:
P_{0}\; =\; 3,\; P_{n+1}\; =\; P_{n}\; +\; \sin \left( P_{n} \right)
I know little about it except that after 2 iterations it is correct to at least 9 places.  Perhaps this should be included?  It is the fastest method I have seen, except it may be quite slow to find the sin after quite a few iterations.
Robert 18:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have answered your own question. This formula, indeed, triples the number of correct digits with every iteration, but calculating the sine is too expensive to make the formula effective. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calculating PI 

message: The physical formulae mentioned are measure-dependent, and may not contain Pi if another measure is used. Even though this is briefly illustrated at the bottom of the article, in my opinion it should be stated at this point. Alternatively, concerned formulae could be removed. But the present form gives the reader the impression that Pi comes out of the nature of the physics involved, where it is only used for convenience.
62.178.9.201 00:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no physics expert, but I'd say that π does come out of the nature of the physics involved. If you redefine your units\variables to eliminate π from one equation, it will pop up in another, related equation. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would say that it really does not have so much to do with the physics as with the approximations and idealizations one is interested in. In many places in physics one is interested in getting formulas for idealized situations such as "imagine an infinitely long, perfectly regular, cylinder of <some stuff>" or "imagine an infinite plane sheet made of <some stuff>", because these idealizations give rise to simple formulas and are often adequate for analysing real-world situations where the stuff does not really extend infintely. In general pi is going to show up in one or the other of such formulas, simply because of the geometry of the idealized situations. For example, if something in the physics depends somehow on the relation between the volume of the stuff and the surface area of the stuff, it is a geometrical fact that there is going to be a factor involving 2pi in difference between the formulas for "infinite plane" and "infinite cylinder". Because physicists want to have formulas for both kinds of idealizations, they are stuck with having pi somewhere. But it's really geometry more than physics that brings it in, once you have decided that you'd like your physical laws to be rotation invariant. –Henning Makholm 21:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's exactly what I was trying to say. Ie. that it is not due to the physical fact that forces between charges diminish with \frac{1}{r^2} that \pi pops up in Coulomb's law in the SI system, but it is chosen so that the unit sphere area will cancel out somewhere else, if you calculate something which is of more interest to you. In  other words, \pi reflects the geometry of the space the physics take place in, not the physics itself. I consider this a crucial difference. It is good that the article mentions physical formulae containing \pi in the SI measure that might be familiar to the reader, but it should be stated that it is not a physical necessity that this particular equation contains \pi. Georg Wachter 14:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical Formulae: Measure Dependent 

message: Please add a semi-protection tag to this article.--69.118.235.97 23:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  protection tag 

message: Under the section Analysis, the second example begins with the sentence: Half the circumference of the unit circle: but the formula states it's equal to Pi; which is the whole circumference, not half of it! What am I missing here? -- Daniel B. Sedory 67.150.121.211 21:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The unit circle has radius 1. Therefore its diameter is 2, and its total circumference is 2\pi. –Henning Makholm 23:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there an error here? 

message: Pi x 10^9 is equal to the number of seconds in 99.55319 years or 99 and 55319/100000 years. 24.4.131.142 05:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neat thing about pi

message: Where n is the diameter of a circle in feet, the circumference of said circle in metres will be about n — 5%. knoodelhed (talk) 08:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another neat thing

message: *the circumference of a circle divided by its raduis  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lairtnogaw (talk • contribs) 21:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pi also is...

message: Does this article need a section on this? (Or similar) --Earin 16:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. We used to have one, but it got unwieldy, had questionable encyclopedic value, and needed constant care and trimming because people tended to add listings for every offhand reference to pi in any fictional context whatsoever. I would support adding fictional references to the current article only if some literary use of pi is of high internal importance within the work of fiction and has this importance has been noted by a respectable secondary source. –Henning Makholm 23:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pi in Popular Media

message: I was going to review the article for its GA nom, and have read the article completely, but I think it needs more sources/references. Until that is accomplished, this won't pass GA.  Lex94 Talk  Contributions Signatures 19:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anything in particular you'd like to see cited, or are you looking for a specific number of sources? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Hello, I am the reviewer of this article. If you have anything to ask, please do so. You can leave a message here or you can leave one on my talk page. Regards, Daimanta 01:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does the sourcing look so far? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Up to "Advanced properties" the sources are good, but after that, no sources appear. Can somebody explain that to me? Regar~ds, Daimanta 12:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been going through the article referencing things; that's the only section I haven't appreciatively cited since the last reviewer came along. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 13:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, how long do you think this will take? Daimanta 15:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know... I just got sick, and have some projects due on monday/wednesday, but I'll work on it when I can. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that's fine with me. I hope the GA committee won't be angry with :( Regards, Daimanta 12:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't been able to find one, so I removed that sentence. If someone comes across one for it at a later point, it can be added back. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 13:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reinserted and expanded it. It is important that we do not support the impression that some popular mathematics articles give, that Buffon's needle is a serious alternative to calculating pi from first principles. Its shortcomings have nothing to do with pi in particular, or with the derivation of the result, but are readily apparent in the form of the formula itself. It's all about not expecting to get more significant digits out of a post-experiment calculation than there are in the raw measurements one put into it. There are vast numbers of science textbooks that teach this general principle, though finding one that uses Buffon's needle in particular as an example of it would probably be harder. However, demanding such an exact citation would be counterproductive; it would be like requiring a particular cite for a claim that the animal Ruwenzorisorex suncoides bears live young instead of accepting a derivation from the well-sourced fact that mammals in general do so. –Henning Makholm 13:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it looks like it was already promoted, but I added references to that section anyway (diff). —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, that pisses me off. Somebody else has apparently promoted the article to GA but without discussing it and mentioning it. I WILL have a word with this person since I believe he is stepping his bounds. Anyway, the article is now worthy of GA, congratulation and thanks for helping me. Regards, Daimanta 13:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: The following excerpt from the article talks about the nature of the circle, while I contend that the prevalence of π in physics formulas is due solely to trigonometric coordinate systems. Can anyone expound?
The number π appears routinely in equations describing fundamental principles of the Universe, due in no small part to its relationship to the nature of the circle and, correspondingly, spherical coordinate systems.
Michael.Urban 20:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "its" refers to π, so the relationship in the title is not implied. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the relationship between the principles of the universe and the nature of the circle? 

message: A small point: the article says, " "π" is usually pronounced as pie when referring to the constant, although the letter is properly pronounced pee otherwise. " This wording is misleading. Pi in English is always "properly" pronounced "pie". It is only correct to say that it is "properly pronounced pee" in modern Greek. See the article on the letter pi which gets this right. 24.136.6.69 04:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem we have to solve here is to explain how the mathematical constant is pronounced, without getting into a long irrelevant digressions about other ways it might be pronounced. What makes it difficult is that there is apparently a disagreement about how to speak about π when discussing modern Greek spelling and typography in English. Some, like you, say that all pi's are equal in English pronunciation; others seem to want to use the Greek pronunciation when discussing the Greek language. Though this disagreement, in and of itself, is irrelevant to this article, it makes it difficult to craft an explanation of the (undisputed and uncontroversial!) mathematical usage that sounds neutral to both sides in that other dispute. –Henning Makholm 12:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at the very least it should be refined to say that all mathematical usages of the letter in English are pronounced "pie", whether or not they refer to the constant. --Trovatore 22:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, my humble attempt is in place. I've replaced "the constant" by "English in a mathematical context"; that addressed my concern above without belaboring the point. Similarly, "pronounced 'pee' in Greek" should be noncontroversial, and the question of how to pronounce the letter in English when talking about Greek is simply ignored as irrelevant to this article. Hopefully this should satisfy everyone who doesn't have a chip on the shoulder, and it keeps the tangential discussion short. --Trovatore 22:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: I found a site thatsays they have proof pi is rational.  I don't understand all that random math but the pi article and the site disagree.  I think this should be looked into by someone who understands math better than I. 96.228.42.233 (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Search for the phrase you can safely assume this page is a joke in the page. --Trovatore (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually appears as you can safely rest assured that that this page is a joke (note that the parity of the multiplicity of that is unchanged). The page is not completely wrong though. It states, for example, that if 1=2 then π is rational, which is absolutely true. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is it now? Au contraire, I have a beautiful proof that if 1=2 then π is trancendental. Unfortunately it is too large to fit in this talk page. It is also a well-known fact in absolute piology (which investigates those properties of π that are independent of whether 1=2) that π cannot at the same time be rational and trancendental. If Meni's claim were true, we would be able to conclude (by contradiction) that 1≠2. –Henning Makholm 00:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since 1≠2, then any statement of the form "if 1=2 then X" is true (independent of X).  At least in terms of formal logic.  See also :Logical implication and in particular the following part: "For example, any material conditional statement with a false antecedent is true. So the statement '2 is odd implies 2 is even' is true."  But although true, the statement is also meaningless, because 1≠2. -- Why Not A Duck 01:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Henning's comment was meant to be a joke (mine, although true, was also intended to have a humorous effect). -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 09:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Pi Rational 

message: Having determined the length of the Circumference do this.
Where C is Circumference length
Where F is 1/4 of the Circumference length
Where A is the Square Area
C/4 = F 
F squared = Square Area of the Circle
I'm sure some can write this neater than I have, but the point is made. You can literally square a circumference length.
--58.186.152.192 (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How, with compass and ruler, can you make a straight line the length of a circumference of a circle? Gscshoyru (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You cannot. You Transform a Circumference length, to a Linear length, as described in my other reply to you. That should  eliminate your confusion.--Layman1 (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I wonder if I misunderstood your question due to the phrasing.
If you are involving Pi, you can but it will be imprecise. Let me give a clear example, presuming Gamma is substituted for Pi and the Statement is  3:1  Simply Divide the Linear line representing Circumference by 6 and set the Compass to that value. 1/6 of the Linear value is the radius value. --Layman1 (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Layman, one conversation at a time. I'd really like to keep these two seperate, so we don't confuse them... unless you were the anon? Gscshoyru (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok. No, I wasn't signed anon anywhere. I jumped in when I realized I had probably misunderstood your question, so my 1st reply would be wrong, if I did. I will correct cannot, to can. I gave the example that I did because it is easier to explain.  Let me add that I am GMT + 7 here.  --Layman1 (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SQUARING A CIRCLE IS CHILD'S PLAY 

message: I think it's noteworthy to include a sentence or two about Daniel Tammet, under the Memorizing Digits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi#Memorizing_digits 
Wikipedia article of him is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Tammet#Pi 
124.107.125.165 (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? His achievement is nowhere near the world record, and is thus irrelevant here. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daniel Tammet and Pi