Originally posted by JS357 It can be expressed exactly in base pi, in which case it is 10. Right?
In any base, the base is expressible as 10. I think.🙄
Yes, so both of us know the exact value of pi in base pi.
For another interesting irrational base see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio_base#Representing_irrational_numbers_of_note_as_golden_ratio_base_numbers
Originally posted by twhitehead And that is the problem. There is no such thing as using exactly an infinite number of digits.
Its like saying 'you could count to infinity if you counted all the integers'. Its incoherent because there is not actual number called 'infinity'.
No - not an exact number of digits, but an exact value of pi.
Originally posted by twhitehead No, universal truths, are by definition, universally true. You might argue that the value of pi is not a universal truth, but you cannot claim that universal truths are changeable.
And the value of pi possibly depends on certain axioms but not on cosmic circumstances, so it is not changeable in extreme cosmic circumstances.
If the axioms are false, then ...[text shortened]... t rather solely on definitions. So it may not even be a 'truth' at all, but rather a definition.
Well there is one hitch in all that: IF we live in a multiverse there may be versions of our universe with slightly different laws of physics, like the difference between mass of proton Vs electron or some such or the gravitational constant. If G changes circles might change since you do circles in space time. If spacetime is somehow different there PI COULD change a bit.
Besides, this being could play with the digits 10 trillion away from the first 9 or so and have not one whit of difference in practical outcomes.
Originally posted by sonhouse If G changes circles might change since you do circles in space time.
As already pointed out, we do not do circles in spacetime. We do them in Euclidian geometry. It is already the case that circles in spacetime do not have a circumference of 2*pi*r^2 as spacetime is not flat. Similarly, triangles in space time do not have angles that add up to 180 degrees.
If spacetime is somehow different there PI COULD change a bit. Pi is a mathematical constant, not a physical constant. As already pointed out, it is obtainable from certain sequences. Those sequences have nothing whatsoever to do with the specific spacetime we live in.
Besides, this being could play with the digits 10 trillion away from the first 9 or so and have not one whit of difference in practical outcomes. The discrepancy between circles in space time and Euclidean circles is quite a bit more significant than that - depending of course where you measure. Near a black hole it gets really significant.
Originally posted by divegeester Leaving aside the god element, why is the value of pi a universal truth? Aren't universal "truths" changeable in extreme cosmic circumstances.
That is the question I am asking.
You could propose that universal constants like the cosmological constant, G or electron charge.
But I don't see how pi can be changed. It isn't a physical thing is it?
Originally posted by JS357 Related question: does an omniscient being know the exact numeric value of pi? (Say, in base 10.)
BTW, most people think of pi in its geometric sense but it is also the numeric value of a mathematical series expansion. More than one series expansion, actually.
Here's one: PI/4 = 1/1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + ...
or PI = 4(1/1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + ...)
alternating + and - and using odd integers.
http://math2.org/math/constants/pi.htm
But isn't that derivation of pi obtained through Fourier series expansion which of course involves sines and cosines, the values of which dependent of the basic geometry of circles!?
(Been too damned long since I actually did any of that stuff - oh how I miss the good old days of uni 🙁 )
Originally posted by Agerg But isn't that derivation of pi obtained through Fourier series expansion which of course involves sines and cosines, the values of which dependent of the basic geometry of circles!?
(Been too damned long since I actually did any of that stuff - oh how I miss the good old days of uni 🙁 )
Well the problem I see is that you have to use the exact values of irrationals like 1/3 and 1/7 to calculate it. Maybe that says the same thing.