The Last Digit of Pi is Zero?

[Thomas09]

http://www.eveandersson.com/pi/digits/1000000
It's actually one.

That reminds me of when I want to copy down an action replay code.

 

[VP7]

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.

Use a Heisenberg compensator.

 

[hyunchoi98]

I think this is like saying

"Write all the digits of 1/3."

It doesn't make sense

 

[rahulkadukar]

Hey Cyrus C. there is something known as Rational and something known as Irrational number. A rational number can be written as (p/q) and an irrational number cannot be written like that so basically an irrational number is a stream of numbers that you cannot say will ever end.


For example look at this series:

Gregory and Leibniz found
pi/4 =
Sum from k=1 to k = infinity
((-1)^(k+1))/(2k-1)

For the first 7 terms pi/4 is equal to

1 - (1/3) + (1/5) - (1/7) + (1/9) - (1/11) + (1/13).....

Now you can go to a billion terms and you will just get closer to the real value but there will never be an end

 

[TheBB]

Oh wow, the fail is really, really strong in this thread.

 

[ManasijV]

What were you even thinking?

 

[Zane_C]

In my opinion I would think because it's irrational it would not have a zero at the end, because if it did wouldn't it be rational.

 

[megaminxwin]

Look.

What you're thinking is that pi goes on forever (correct), but then you say that the last digit (incorrect) is 0 (incorrect also).

Basically, you think that pi ends 'at infinity', but that doesn't make sense. Infinity is arbitrary. It's only an idea, it doesn't really mean anything.

So technically, there IS no end for a zero to go on.

I rest my case.

 

[blah]

In my opinion I would think because it's irrational it would not have a zero at the end, because if it did wouldn't it be rational.

Pleas stop this whole BS about irrational numbers not ending with 0 and rational numbers ending with 0. Ending with 0 is NOT a necessary and sufficient condition for a number to be rational.

I'm going to say this a third (pun intended ) time: 1/3 is rational, but it doesn't "end with 0," whatever that means.

The only logical statement here is:
\( x \in \mathbb{R} \setminus \mathbb{Q} \Rightarrow x \) does not end with 0 (if x is irrational, then x does not end with 0)

...and its contrapositive:
\( x \) ends with 0 \( \Rightarrow x \in \mathbb{Q} \) (if x ends with 0, then it is rational)

The statement "\( x \in \mathbb{Q} \Rightarrow x \) ends with 0" is false.

Edit: Oops.

 

[DaijoCube]

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.

You can't be sure of it's position, speed and direction, but it HAS a position, speed and direction. If we can't find it doesn't mean there is none or that it changes by its own or something.

 

[Zane_C]

In my opinion I would think because it's irrational it would not have a zero at the end, because if it did wouldn't it be rational.

Pleas stop this whole BS about irrational numbers not ending with 0 and rational numbers ending with 0. Ending with 0 is NOT a necessary and sufficient condition for a number to be rational.

I'm going to say this a third (pun intended ) time: 1/3 is rational, but it doesn't "end with 0," whatever that means.

The only logical statement here is:
\( x \in \mathbb{R} \setminus \mathbb{Q} \Rightarrow x \) does not end with 0 (if x is irrational, then x does not end with 0)

...and its contrapositive:
\( x \) ends with 0 \( \Rightarrow x \in \mathbb{Q} \) (if x ends with 0, then it is rational)

The statement "\( x \in \mathbb{Q} \Rightarrow x \) ends with 0" is false.

Edit: Oops.

Ok.

 

[LewisJ]

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.

Use a Heisenberg compensator.

Wouldn't we love for those to be real

@ the last 4 of you to hand out some form of the "no it isn't 0" argument - you're late, show's over, he already got convinced on the second page. The new argument is about the feasibility of simulating the whole universe and answering impossible questions via that simulation.

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.

You can't be sure of it's position, speed and direction, but it HAS a position, speed and direction. If we can't find it doesn't mean there is none or that it changes by its own or something.

I never said there is none, and I never said it changes randomly/on its own either. Obviously there is SOME absolute position and SOME exact velocity. The problem is - if we find the position to perfect accuracy, we know exactly NOTHING about the velocity, and thus, as soon as we've measured the position, it's somewhere else and we don't have a clue where! If we know a whole lot about its velocity and can rather accurately follow where it will go, we then no longer know its original location.

Yes, it HAS a position and it HAS a velocity, but nothing can be done to accurately find both of those at the same time. This is just one of numerous problems in your argument, and you STILL haven't addressed my observation that EVEN if we broke numerous laws of physics and made various things possible just for the sake of your future-predicting simulation, once you had the infinite search space of the future, you'd never be able to find the LAST time someone solves a rubik's cube, just like you'd never be able to find the LAST occurrence of 3 in the decimal representation of 1/3. Your proposition is flawed in that way in a way that simply CAN'T be fixed by bending rules.

 

[Karthik]

The last digit of Pi would have to be 0 right...

There would have to be a hard-rock café at the end of the universe. Right?

 

[CuBeOrDiE]

why is this thread still going on?

 

[Stefan]

you'd never be able to find the LAST time someone solves a rubik's cube, just like you'd never be able to find the LAST occurrence of 3 in the decimal representation of 1/3.

Why are you asserting that there can't be a last rubik's cube solve? How do you know?

 

[Owen]

I say It has no end.

 

[scottishcuber]

For arguements sake, lets say that pi does not have infinite decimals and lets say that pi is 1.98 (just a random number).
1.98=1.980=1.9800
These numbers are all the same, if you see 1.9800000 you shouldnt say that it ends on a zero because you dont need a zero there, and in maths you dont put a zero at the end of any decimal. In that sense no decimal no matter how long it is would end in a zero.
If Cyrus C. is right then every decimal would end in a zero because you can put zero at the end of every decimal...
pi is irrational anyway so it doesnt end

 

[LewisJ]

you'd never be able to find the LAST time someone solves a rubik's cube, just like you'd never be able to find the LAST occurrence of 3 in the decimal representation of 1/3.

Why are you asserting that there can't be a last rubik's cube solve? How do you know?

Given the infinite time span of the universe (which nearly everything I've read in SOME way suggests), it seems obvious that there can't be a guaranteed LAST solve. I may well be missing something here - perhaps there will be an eventual constant, everlasting state of the universe, but I don't think or see evidence that such a state is possible. Feel free to expand on your argument though, you could easily be much more well-versed in theories/arguments regarding the "end" of the universe than I am.

 

[DaijoCube]

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.

Use a Heisenberg compensator.

Wouldn't we love for those to be real

@ the last 4 of you to hand out some form of the "no it isn't 0" argument - you're late, show's over, he already got convinced on the second page. The new argument is about the feasibility of simulating the whole universe and answering impossible questions via that simulation.

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.

You can't be sure of it's position, speed and direction, but it HAS a position, speed and direction. If we can't find it doesn't mean there is none or that it changes by its own or something.

I never said there is none, and I never said it changes randomly/on its own either. Obviously there is SOME absolute position and SOME exact velocity. The problem is - if we find the position to perfect accuracy, we know exactly NOTHING about the velocity, and thus, as soon as we've measured the position, it's somewhere else and we don't have a clue where! If we know a whole lot about its velocity and can rather accurately follow where it will go, we then no longer know its original location.

Yes, it HAS a position and it HAS a velocity, but nothing can be done to accurately find both of those at the same time. This is just one of numerous problems in your argument, and you STILL haven't addressed my observation that EVEN if we broke numerous laws of physics and made various things possible just for the sake of your future-predicting simulation, once you had the infinite search space of the future, you'd never be able to find the LAST time someone solves a rubik's cube, just like you'd never be able to find the LAST occurrence of 3 in the decimal representation of 1/3. Your proposition is flawed in that way in a way that simply CAN'T be fixed by bending rules.

As I said, it cannot be predicted by a human, but physically, it is true. We are both right.

 

[macky]

it's 1; you express it in base pi.

[edit] ah damn it, I see someone already wrote this.