The Last Digit of Pi is Zero?

[Deleted member 4527]

And blah, please be more specific, tell me where my mistake was.

My question was whether you can represent numbers in an irrational base such as base pi and your answer was to show how logarithms work. It was irrelevant to the question.

You mean a base pi numbering system?
If that is the question, the answer is yes.

yes because Stefan was talking about pi in base pi. And okay thx for the answer.

EDIT: found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio_base so I guess it's possible.

 

[Johannes91]

we can't exactly represent the number unless it can be written as some integer divided by some power of 10.

1/2 = 0.5

"some power of 10" ---> "2^m*5^n"

 

[iSpinz]

I love this forum.

 

[qqwref]

we can't exactly represent the number unless it can be written as some integer divided by some power of 10.

1/2 = 0.5

"some power of 10" ---> "2^m*5^n"

You can't write 1/2 as 5/10?

there is no randomness in the world.

How do you know?

2-When you drop a ball, it'll fall. If you take the exact same conditions, it'll fall the exact same way.

Er, prove it? How do you know it's falling "the exact same way" every time? Besides, even if this were true, just because there is no randomness in one experiment does not mean you can say there is no randomness in any experiment.

 

[JBCM627]

2-When you drop a ball, it'll fall. If you take the exact same conditions, it'll fall the exact same way.

Ever heard of the double-slit experiment?

I said WE, humans, cannot know. If we could know, everything could be predictable.

Not even GOD can know.

Think of it this way. Given algorithms A and B, try [A, B] on a cube. In general, [A, B] != 0. You can't perform A and B simultaneously on a cube, or "measure" both of them.

Physical measurements work the same way. Given measurements (operators) A and B, trying to measure both A and B for a given particle will only be possible if [A, B] = 0. In general, this is not the case.

Saying it is possible to know both position and momentum of a particle is not that different from saying that performing RUR'U' on a solved cube will give you a solved cube. Neither God nor Frank Morris would be able to do this. Well, Frank might.

 

[Daniel Wu]

I love this forum.

I it 2.

 

[DaijoCube]

I love this forum.

I do too

we can't exactly represent the number unless it can be written as some integer divided by some power of 10.

1/2 = 0.5

"some power of 10" ---> "2^m*5^n"

You can't write 1/2 as 5/10?

there is no randomness in the world.

How do you know?

2-When you drop a ball, it'll fall. If you take the exact same conditions, it'll fall the exact same way.

Er, prove it? How do you know it's falling "the exact same way" every time? Besides, even if this were true, just because there is no randomness in one experiment does not mean you can say there is no randomness in any experiment.

I don't know if you did physics class, but particles do not decide whether or not they want to respect physics laws.

 

[TioMario]

And blah, please be more specific, tell me where my mistake was.

My question was whether you can represent numbers in an irrational base such as base pi and your answer was to show how logarithms work. It was irrelevant to the question.

You mean a base pi numbering system?
If that is the question, the answer is yes.

yes because Stefan was talking about pi in base pi. And okay thx for the answer.

EDIT: found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio_base so I guess it's possible.

A base pi numbering system may be useful when working with spheres and circles. Our number 1 would be equal to about 0.3183... in base pi. Circles would be exactly 2 radians around. It seems possible.

 

[qqwref]

there is no randomness in the world.

How do you know?

2-When you drop a ball, it'll fall. If you take the exact same conditions, it'll fall the exact same way.

Er, prove it? How do you know it's falling "the exact same way" every time? Besides, even if this were true, just because there is no randomness in one experiment does not mean you can say there is no randomness in any experiment.

I don't know if you did physics class, but particles do not decide whether or not they want to respect physics laws.

I don't know if you've studied quantum physics at all, but the laws of physics do not specify that all outcomes happen with either 0% or 100% probability.

A base pi numbering system may be useful when working with spheres and circles. Our number 1 would be equal to about 0.3183... in base pi. Circles would be exactly 2 radians around. It seems possible.

This isn't how a base-pi numbering system would work, sorry. It is not as simple as multiplying every number by 1/pi.

 

[miniGOINGS]

A base pi numbering system may be useful when working with spheres and circles. Our number 1 would be equal to about 0.3183... in base pi. Circles would be exactly 2 radians around. It seems possible.

And practical to some degree.

 

[Johannes91]

we can't exactly represent the number unless it can be written as some integer divided by some power of 10.

1/2 = 0.5

"some power of 10" ---> "2^m*5^n"

You can't write 1/2 as 5/10?

Osht, good point.

/me facepalms

 

[DaijoCube]

there is no randomness in the world.

How do you know?

2-When you drop a ball, it'll fall. If you take the exact same conditions, it'll fall the exact same way.

Er, prove it? How do you know it's falling "the exact same way" every time? Besides, even if this were true, just because there is no randomness in one experiment does not mean you can say there is no randomness in any experiment.

I don't know if you did physics class, but particles do not decide whether or not they want to respect physics laws.

I don't know if you've studied quantum physics at all, but the laws of physics do not specify that all outcomes happen with either 0% or 100% probability.

A base pi numbering system may be useful when working with spheres and circles. Our number 1 would be equal to about 0.3183... in base pi. Circles would be exactly 2 radians around. It seems possible.

This isn't how a base-pi numbering system would work, sorry. It is not as simple as multiplying every number by 1/pi.

I did little Quantum Physics. I'm not talking at all of probabilities, I'm talking of what will happen. I do understand what you mean, and it makes me doubt a lot. I would love, seriously, to be proven wrong. I'm only looking for that, so I can finally sleep

 

[JBCM627]

I don't know if you've studied quantum physics at all, but the laws of physics do not specify that all outcomes happen with either 0% or 100% probability.

I did little Quantum Physics. I'm not talking at all of probabilities, I'm talking of what will happen. I do understand what you mean, and it makes me doubt a lot. I would love, seriously, to be proven wrong. I'm only looking for that, so I can finally sleep

Ever heard of the double-slit experiment?

Shoot photons or electrons or identical cubes or anything you like one at a time through an appropriate double-slit. They won't all land on the same spot.

 

[Stefan]

My question was whether you can represent numbers in an irrational base such as base pi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-integer_representation#Base_.CF.80

 

[DaijoCube]

I don't know if you've studied quantum physics at all, but the laws of physics do not specify that all outcomes happen with either 0% or 100% probability.

I did little Quantum Physics. I'm not talking at all of probabilities, I'm talking of what will happen. I do understand what you mean, and it makes me doubt a lot. I would love, seriously, to be proven wrong. I'm only looking for that, so I can finally sleep

Ever heard of the double-slit experiment?

Yes, I did, often. As I said, I'd love to be proven wrong, but since we don't know all the basics in physics, we can't be sure we live in a determinist universe.

That being said, can't wait to see other posts on this thread, I love it. My body needs rest

 

[Stefan]

we can't be sure we live in a determinist universe.

So why did you claim that we do?

 

[DaijoCube]

we can't be sure we live in a determinist universe.

So why did you claim that we do?

1- I enjoy debating.
2- Mostly everything leads to this conclusion.
3- It is not necessarily a sensible truth, but the same kind of truth when you ask yourself if you exist, and you KNOW you exist when you can't prove it at all.

 

[Deleted member 4527]

My question was whether you can represent numbers in an irrational base such as base pi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-integer_representation#Base_.CF.80

sweet

And I'm sure I've heard about this thing that you can never be sure where an electron is. You can only narrow it down to an finite space in which it will be in. Sorry if I'm wrong, I'm very noob at physics.

 

[LewisJ]

Well, I might create a philosophical debate here. At a specific moment in time, if we could know the position, speed, acceleration, mass and nature of all particle in the Universe, it would be MATHEMATICALLY possible to calculate every single event in the past and future.

What the...?
Mathematics isn't the same as physics, you can't use mathematics in the real world without using the physical laws. Now, what do you mean with
"every single event in the past and future"?

By knowing the elementary properties of every particle it is possible to predict collisions and the results of all those collisions; from there you can theoretically find what they all will do forever because they follow a set of laws. In this way you are using both math and physics.

I love when somebody gets it.

I understand what you're saying just fine, but read my post arguing against it:

"anyway, daijo you're again making the comparison between finite and infinite. Once you've predicted the future forever and ever and ever, you have to search through that infinite future for the LAST occurrence of a cube being solved. Simply impossible to do - one of the key ideas behind the word infinite."

For reasons which have been spelled out in more recent posts, I still think your proposed possibility is not possible. Assuming every other effort against your idea fails, once you know everything that would ever happen ever, you have the problem of an infinite search space - you can't find the LAST time something finite happens in an infinite search space! But before you even get to that problem, you have all kinds of fundamental laws of various branches of physics standing glaringly in your way, not to mention the factor of time itself. Computing what every particle in the universe will do will take longer than it will take all of those particles to do what they'll do because computational capabilities are limited by........the number of particles in the universe!

 

[LewisJ]

My question was whether you can represent numbers in an irrational base such as base pi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-integer_representation#Base_.CF.80

sweet

And I'm sure I've heard about this thing that you can never be sure where an electron is. You can only narrow it down to an finite space in which it will be in. Sorry if I'm wrong, I'm very noob at physics.

It's called the heisenberg(sp) uncertainty principle; the more you know about an electron's position, the less you know about its velocity (speed and direction), and vice versa, because in order to locate an electron, you must bounce something off it, and that will change its velocity.