π = 3 (sometimes) for Nobel laureate
ask.metafilter.com
π = 3 (sometimes) for Nobel laureate
1–10 of 39 posts
Re: π = 3 (sometimes) for Nobel laureate
#2Ha, in one of my physics classes the professor actually set pi = 1 :)
Re: π = 3 (sometimes) for Nobel laureate
#3This guy sounds like every microelectronics prof ever. :) I took that to heart when doing the exams and it make the impossible possible.
Re: π = 3 (sometimes) for Nobel laureate
#4Every russian professor I had loved gaussian units.
I learned to love them too. Everything is simpler when you don't have 3-5 constants staring you in the face.
Re: π = 3 (sometimes) for Nobel laureate
#5Hmm, whilst it's true physicists often simplify equations to really understand the problem, I can't think of a variable in quantum mechanics we "don't know to within 2 orders of magnitude". Especially one called alpha, which usually denotes the fine structure constant, which we know to better than 1 in a billion...
Anyone have some thoughts on what it could be, if true?
Re: π = 3 (sometimes) for Nobel laureate
#6Any person with a marketing degree will tell you this is false. Try to bill for a circular billboard (say a circular podium at a conference booth) where ~4.7% of the surface lacks proper advertisements or necessary background color.
Re: π = 3 (sometimes) for Nobel laureate
#7This guy sounds like every microelectronics prof ever. :) I took that to heart when doing the exams and it make the impossible possible.
I really enjoyed it when my EE professors would simply erase components of a circuit diagram if they didn't matter and they made things complicated. I think that had an impact on my approach to solving problems.
Re: π = 3 (sometimes) for Nobel laureate
#8[deleted]
Re: π = 3 (sometimes) for Nobel laureate
#9Pi ~ 3, but we also often need Pi^2, which is better approximated as 10. (I actually got into an argument about rounding Pi^2 to 10 once with a person who liked to round Pi to 3 ...)
Re: π = 3 (sometimes) for Nobel laureate
#10I got exactly the same lesson in almost similar situation, but from a guy who was not even close to (someone who is close to) a Nobel's prize. He did a sum of a problem from the test using a small constants reference book and his head. Despite the numerous simplifications in the calculation, error of his result was less then 5%.