Live data from Hacker News

A formula for the nth digit of πœ‹ and πœ‹^n

arxiv.org

51–60 of 143 posts

Re: A formula for the nth digit of πœ‹ and πœ‹^n

#51
post #22

In "n’th digit of πœ‹ and πœ‹^n" are both n the same? In other words, for say πœ‹^50 does the formula only give me the 50th digit, or does it give me any arbitrary digit I want?

> In "n’th digit of πœ‹ and πœ‹^n" are both n the same?

Yes.

> In other words, for say πœ‹^50 does the formula only give me the 50th digit

Yes.

> or does it give me any arbitrary digit I want?

It gives you the n-th digit of \pi^n. Here n is arbitrary.

Re: A formula for the nth digit of πœ‹ and πœ‹^n

#52

The paper seems absolutely brilliant, but the grammar is very strange (there’s even what appears to be a typo in the paper where he says β€œrand n” instead of β€œrank n”). Odd that he wouldn’t have worked with somebody with better written English before publishing.

It isn't published, it's a pre-print.

If you can download it from arxiv, it is published. Researchers don’t really care whether the paper went through formal peer review and publication process in some journal, because that process is of little value: they can figure out that the author meant rank instead of rand etc.

Re: A formula for the nth digit of πœ‹ and πœ‹^n

#53
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't published, it's a pre-print.

If you can download it from arxiv, it is published. Researchers don’t really care whether the paper went through formal peer review and publication process in some journal, because that process is of little value: they can figure out that the author meant rank instead of rand etc.

"Published" in this context is short for "published to a journal" or more completely for this thread "gone through the full edit cycle you would expect from a paper published to a journal".

For example, https://arxiv.org/help/jref says:

> When a article is published, the author may wish to indicate this in the abstract listing for the article. For this reason, the journal reference and DOI (Digital Object Identifier) fields are provided for articles.

This can only make sense if "public abstract on arxiv" is not the same as "published" in the way you mean.

Re: A formula for the nth digit of πœ‹ and πœ‹^n

#54
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would make it a rational number, so we can rule that out

Exactly, the only possible "last digit" it could have (in keeping with the silly premise that it has one), is zero.

Why is zero different than any other number?

Re: A formula for the nth digit of πœ‹ and πœ‹^n

#55
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would make it a rational number, so we can rule that out

Exactly, the only possible "last digit" it could have (in keeping with the silly premise that it has one), is zero.

I don't think that would be true seeing 1/3 = 0.3333.. , or am I reading this wrong?

Re: A formula for the nth digit of πœ‹ and πœ‹^n

#56
post #21

Chatgpt, please write a function in python for the nth digit of pi. Sure, here is a function in Python that calculates the nth digit of Pi using the Chudnovsky algorithm: from decimal import * def nth_digit_of_pi(n): getcontext().prec = n + 1 C = 426880 * math.sqrt(10005) M = 1 L = 13591409 X = 1 K = 6 S = L for i in range(1, n): M = (K ** 3 - 16 * K) * M // i ** 3 L += 545140134 X *= -262537412640768000 S += Decimal…

since this is Python, `nth_digit_of_pi(-1)` should give us the last number of Pi.

Genius.

Re: A formula for the nth digit of πœ‹ and πœ‹^n

#59
post #22

In "n’th digit of πœ‹ and πœ‹^n" are both n the same? In other words, for say πœ‹^50 does the formula only give me the 50th digit, or does it give me any arbitrary digit I want?

Mathematicians (and other math subjects) use an interesting notation that is something like a "semantically local variable". A symbol like n can be reused multiple times, as long as the context is clear you're allowed to do that.

Re: A formula for the nth digit of πœ‹ and πœ‹^n

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, the only possible "last digit" it could have (in keeping with the silly premise that it has one), is zero.

I don't think that would be true seeing 1/3 = 0.3333.. , or am I reading this wrong?

3 recurring represents a particular quantity continuing forever.

0 recurring represents the end of a quantity, and the absence of any further quantity, forever.

Eg: 0.012500000000000...

The significant portion is 0.0125 - the recurring zeroes serve a mathematical role akin to that of a full-stop in a sentence. Hence zero being (jokingly, but in a sense truthfully) always the "last digit".

Post reply on HN