Yet another pandigital approximation (just for fun)

07132014, 08:01 PM
Post: #1




Yet another pandigital approximation (just for fun)


07132014, 08:59 PM
Post: #2




RE: Yet another pandigital approximation (just for fun)
(07132014 08:01 PM)Gerson W. Barbosa Wrote: 3.141592652604741850582811832470500214369877171937092730936285... Bravo! Greetings, Massimo +×÷ ↔ left is right and right is wrong 

07132014, 09:01 PM
Post: #3




RE: Yet another pandigital approximation (just for fun)
Greetings, Massimo +×÷ ↔ left is right and right is wrong 

07132014, 09:03 PM
Post: #4




RE: Yet another pandigital approximation (just for fun)
Very nice!


07132014, 10:40 PM
Post: #5




RE: Yet another pandigital approximation (just for fun)
(07132014 09:01 PM)Massimo Gnerucci Wrote:(07132014 08:01 PM)Gerson W. Barbosa Wrote: It took me about 20 to 25 minutes to find the approximation, put it in pandigital form and post it here. But then I've missed the first half as I thought the final would begin at 1700 local time (it began one hour earlier) 

07132014, 11:04 PM
Post: #6




RE: Yet another pandigital approximation (just for fun)
(07132014 09:03 PM)Thomas Klemm Wrote: Very nice! Thanks! On the HP32S: 2 LN LN pi / > 1.16664686E1 > pi ~ 1/18750  60/7*ln(ln(2)) I only tried a pandigital form because I wrongly factored 18750 as 2*3*5^4 (actually 18750 is equal to 2*3*5^5, which made the task a little bit more difficult  but that's what the properties of logarithms are for :) 

07182014, 05:19 AM
Post: #7




RE: Yet another pandigital approximation (just for fun)
(07132014 08:59 PM)Massimo Gnerucci Wrote:(07132014 08:01 PM)Gerson W. Barbosa Wrote: Ten digits yielding only nine correct digits of pi. Same with this previous attempt: Luckily enough their average gives twelve correct digits :) 3.141592653588141... 

07182014, 05:56 AM
(This post was last modified: 07182014 06:00 AM by Massimo Gnerucci.)
Post: #8




RE: Yet another pandigital approximation (just for fun)
(07182014 05:19 AM)Gerson W. Barbosa Wrote:(07132014 08:59 PM)Massimo Gnerucci Wrote: 3.141592652604741850582811832470500214369877171937092730936285... Wow, this is so much nicer! 3.141592654571540303409367866518360732739326280463671619184479... Greetings, Massimo +×÷ ↔ left is right and right is wrong 

07182014, 06:21 AM
Post: #9




RE: Yet another pandigital approximation (just for fun)
(07182014 05:56 AM)Massimo Gnerucci Wrote:(07182014 05:19 AM)Gerson W. Barbosa Wrote: Ten digits yielding only nine correct digits of pi. Perhaps (e^3)^4 would be better than e^(3*4), but I'm not sure whether the expression would look nicer in the equation editor. 

09262014, 07:02 PM
Post: #10




RE: Yet another pandigital approximation (just for fun)
Also try:
pi = (8545/4821)^2 is a good approximation (should be to decimal 8 places), and pi = (119926/67661)^2 To 9 decimals. Namir 

09272014, 09:26 AM
Post: #11




RE: Yet another pandigital approximation (just for fun)
(09262014 07:02 PM)Namir Wrote: Also try: No more pandigital, though... Greetings, Massimo +×÷ ↔ left is right and right is wrong 

09272014, 07:10 PM
(This post was last modified: 09272014 07:11 PM by Namir.)
Post: #12




RE: Yet another pandigital approximation (just for fun)
(09272014 09:26 AM)Massimo Gnerucci Wrote:(09262014 07:02 PM)Namir Wrote: Also try: Massimo, You have to have a special genius mind to see all of the digits!! (with apologies to The Emperor's New Clothes) :) Namir 

09272014, 07:17 PM
(This post was last modified: 09272014 07:19 PM by Namir.)
Post: #13




RE: Yet another pandigital approximation (just for fun)
I thus define the new term pandigital number of the second kind ... where you use the digits that appear in the number to calculate the missing ones!!! The rule is that you can calculate the missing numbers by using sets of single operations between existing digits. You can reuse an existing digit in different single operations.
For example, the number 123567890 is a pandigital number of the second kind, since we can add 1 and 3 to get 4. The number 12367890 is also a pandigital number of the second kind because the missing digits 4 and 5 are calculated using 4=1+3, and 5=2+3. However, the number 19 is NOT pandigital number of the second kind, because we cannot use 1 and 9 in a set of single operations to calculate digits other than 8 or 0. :) This is fun and totally absurd at the same time. "The Heretic" Namir 

09282014, 12:52 AM
(This post was last modified: 09282014 12:53 AM by Joe Horn.)
Post: #14




RE: Yet another pandigital approximation (just for fun)
(09272014 07:17 PM)Namir Wrote: This is fun and totally absurd at the same time. "A little nonsense, now and then, Is relished by the wisest men." <0ɸ0> Joe 

09282014, 03:16 PM
Post: #15




RE: Yet another pandigital approximation (just for fun)
Joe,
My interest in this thread is really about calculating pi ... regardless of the kinds of digits used. I have two books about calculating pi and then have a ton of short formulas that calculate pi ... as well as the long series that we are familiar with. Namir 

09282014, 07:15 PM
Post: #16




RE: Yet another pandigital approximation (just for fun)
(09282014 03:16 PM)Namir Wrote: My interest in this thread is really about calculating pi ... regardless of the kinds of digits used. I have two books about calculating pi and then have a ton of short formulas that calculate pi ... as well as the long series that we are familiar with. What about this palindromic approximation? Is there such a category or is this the first one? 

10012014, 01:35 AM
(This post was last modified: 10012014 01:38 AM by Namir.)
Post: #17




RE: Yet another pandigital approximation (just for fun)
(09282014 07:15 PM)Gerson W. Barbosa Wrote:(09282014 03:16 PM)Namir Wrote: My interest in this thread is really about calculating pi ... regardless of the kinds of digits used. I have two books about calculating pi and then have a ton of short formulas that calculate pi ... as well as the long series that we are familiar with. This is a very good palindromic approximation indeed!! 

10012014, 02:33 AM
Post: #18




RE: Yet another pandigital approximation (just for fun)
(09282014 07:15 PM)Gerson W. Barbosa Wrote:(09282014 03:16 PM)Namir Wrote: My interest in this thread is really about calculating pi ... regardless of the kinds of digits used. I have two books about calculating pi and then have a ton of short formulas that calculate pi ... as well as the long series that we are familiar with. I don't follow much of the math you guys discuss, so.... why is this expressed in the format shown, since the fraction reduces to 10691 / 462? Bob Prosperi 

10012014, 03:50 AM
Post: #19




RE: Yet another pandigital approximation (just for fun)  
10012014, 03:55 AM
Post: #20




RE: Yet another pandigital approximation (just for fun)
(10012014 02:33 AM)rprosperi Wrote:(09282014 07:15 PM)Gerson W. Barbosa Wrote: What about this palindromic approximation? Is there such a category or is this the first one? The irreducible fraction of course is better, but then neither the numerator nor the denominator are perfect palindromes, like 64146 and 2772. I wonder if there are more palindromic pi approximation around. Hopefully this is not the beginning of new mania 

« Next Oldest  Next Newest »

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)