Well, the continued fraction [3, 7, 15, 1, 292] = 103993 / 33102 also yields 3.141592653... with less effort. BTW, the way he subtracts numbers seems quite complicated to me O_o.
It was an approximation, however he was *VERRY* close. Asking Siri (who uses Wolfram Alpha) even she approximate it to 100.025. Using Wolfram Alpha you get the approximation of 100.0249968757810...
The hair, or lack of it, is awesome! I did the same thing last year and it was liberating not to worry about the impending baldness. It's a bit cold in the winter so invest in a cap.
What seemed wrong to me about the division was Matt's statement at 9:11 "If I need extra bits on the end, I just put zeroes". Surely you have to bring down *exactly* one zero each time. Otherwise, you'll never have a zero in the answer - you'll have invisibly skipped them. Luckily for Matt, (as calculated by calc, see www.isthe.com/chongo/tech/comp/calc/ ): 42698672 / 13591409 ~3.14159275171544024611 and Matt didn't get anywhere near the first 0 of the answer.
David Gould mate you would get a zero when the two numbers subtracted at the end are equal 0. He just didn’t go that far. The method was perfectly valid. You’re just confused.
I find it fascinating that, looking for a good decimal approximation of the number π, you have come up with an extremely accurate approximation of the constant e at 7:25. Although I don't know if it's a coincidence or not.
I dont think it is a coincidense considering that 13591409 is the number from the formula. So when they defined this method of calculating Pi, they probably took the half of e and multiplied it by some power of 10. Or it's really a super (un)lucky coincidense. xD
Fun odd fact, Dr Hawking was born 300 years to the day after Galileo Galilei's death. So, come March 14, 2318 we should have an awesome astrophysicist come back around, kind-of like a Halley's Comet of brains! We can only wait in hope, now.
... if the world is still here by then. We live at a time when Hawking is no longer with us and the "most powerful man" on the planet doesn't have a clue.
Wow crazy good estimate on sqrt 10,005! The actual answer is 100.02499, getting 100.025 in a handful of seconds off the back of a napkin was impressive.
KackBon3rdGen .................... Yeah, no. It is to approximate something. This video even is about Pi - a number that needs to be approximated in most scenarios for the simple reason that it is impossible to show it with 100% accuracy as it is transcendental. An approximation can be complicated for many reasons - fast convergance, easy hardware synthesis, easy to program, or interesting effects. In some cases the approximation can be shown to converge to the real value, but when a specific approximation is used it can cancel out with other parts of the equation making it a lot simpler to use the approximation - which you wouldn't see if you used the 'real' value as a symbol.
The method he used is actually equivalent to a differential approximation. The reason that x2 is ignored is because as x tends to zero, d(x2) /dx is zero
Hey Matt, it would be a great video to show (to some extent) why is there e at 7:25. I reckon it's connected with how the algorithm was conceived. j-invariant and all that
I've learned enough mathematics to know that it's probably not at all a coincidence, and there's a valid reason that one of the "magic numbers" used in the series work out to a multiple of e/2. But I haven't learned enough mathematics to know what that reason is XD
I think it has something to do with the fact that e ^ (pi * √163) ≈ 262537412640768000 + 744. Someone smarter and less lazy than me can probably figure out why.
Compared to that first infinite series video done a few years back, this is a wonderful demonstration of how two different series converge on the same constant at different speeds. Incredible how the Chudnovsky gives you that many digits in just two terms!
Hey Matt, quick observation I wanted to run by you. Today I went back and watched your old video about approximating pi by rolling dice. I wanted to see how accurate this method could be, so I wrote up some code in python to automate it. I was messing around with the variables, like # of sides on the dice and number of dice rolled, and I was trying to optimize it to give the best answer possible. Something that I noticed was that when increasing the number of sides on the dice, accuracy didn't improve linearly. Instead, a highly-divisible number of sides like 30 was more accurate than 31-35, and 36 sides were more accurate than 37-39 sides, 40 sided dice were more accurate than dice with 41-45 sides, and so on. I thought this was really interesting, and was curious if you had any insights as to why using highly divisible dice might increase the accuracy of the program's estimate of pi? Great vid as always, thanks for reading!!
It could be related to floating point errors. The highly divisible numbers have a lot of factors of 2, which are more accurately represented by floating point numbers.
Damn both this and the comment are both smart. I’d feel bad not leaving anything smart. My 10 cents are that code isn’t perfect when doing physical things like dice or even doing anything random. Simulations aren’t perfect with it. Or that could be completely off topic.
considering your using the "math" library, thats the problem it can have more errors deviding more. the true way to simulate this is expressing it in a geometrical manner, you can start with an axis and find your way into a circle(which is what we are looking for anyways), this might be the case of the light beam reflection calculating pi(if you dont know what this means, there is a great video about by 3blue1brown i think), but again i might be wrong as im not familiar with this concept. well you commented 4 years ago, so i guess you alrdy solved this so yea gday
The actual square root of 10005 being 100.0249969, so really quite a good approximation. Considering you got 6 digits of pi and your only difference is at the 6th digit that's a really fantastic sequence!
Dharsono Hartono, well in my country we use a comma as decimal separator, so 8·56 would be 8,56 (or 8.56) for example. And for multiplying we commonly write this symbol (·), for instance 5.6=30 would become 5·6=30.
I'm British and that's not a thing. Multiplication dot is in the middle and decimal point is at the bottom. Also, he's from Australia so that may be why.
Morgan Mitchell hmm, weird, not sure about multiplication sign but middle dot is still used as a decimal separator, usually when handwritten. Source: www.quora.com/Whats-this-punctuation-·-How-can-I-type-it-on-my-computer-What-is-it-used-to-do
Next year, calculate pi using the packing fill ratio of a bcc structure (sqrt(3)pi/8). Pack a box with oranges in a bcc structure and calculate the fill ratio. Basically, calculate pi using some fruits and a box
How long did it actually take for the working out? I was impressed with the 3.1415927 on the very first term. That is on the order of 1 millionth of a percent error, which is well within enough precision for many practical applications. The square root approximation was great, too.
So I spent a few hours working it out, but I discovered that if you take a regular polygon of N sides with a perimeter of 2pi the percentage of the way from the verticy to the midpoint so that you have a distance of 1 from the center very very quickly approaches about 18.35%. I find it very interesting that not only does this number converge, but it also converges very quickly! It took a while because I had to use the COH trig identity, the law of cosines, and the quadratic formula, in addition to a fair amount of algebra.
A damn good run for a sufferer of ALS. He provided us with such tremendous advances in physics that we must be forever grateful, but let it not be said that he was hindered from his goals by his horrible disease. The man will be a legend from now to the end of our species, like Archimedes before him!
The whole way to make the divisions at 7:10 is how they though me to do it in school. Instead of doing 9 rows, they made us darw a square with all the multiples.
nberedim I heard somewhere that 30 digits is more than enough for any practical purpose we will ever need. If I remember correctly, this is because it is approximate enough to be precise down to an atom’s width for the circumference of the observable universe...
That algorithm is remarkably accurate. It looks like approximating the square root is what caused most of the difference. Inputting 426880 * sqrt(10005) / 13591409 into Google's built in calculator gives me 3.14159265359, which is accurate to that many significant figures (the last digit would be an 8 if truncated, but the next digit is a 9, so Google is rounding up).
re: the approximation, that IS stunningly fast; re: the hair, I just thought "oh thank god he finally bit the bullet and did it" but sounds like you thought "thank god I finally got to do it" haha :). and it looks good!
Matt... great to see you using the same tricks I have been using for decades, including the massive division... And yes, it is sad that it is both Einstein's birthday and Hawking's event-horizon day. Yet another tie between two great individuals.
You look so much better with your new hair(less) style! Strangely enough I think your shaved head accentuates the hair you still have while your unshaven head accentuates the thinning hair/bold spot.
I did a calculation for k=2, mostly by hand, using wolfram alpha for the final summations, division, and checking my work. I used Newton's method to get √10005 to be ~2050048640064001/20495363200160 (correct to about 28 decimal places) In the end, I got the following monster of a fraction: 698133748150685240799274301253225532453866700800000/222222873914907800216492660300255490391849918427129. It is correct to 27 decimal places. (3.141592653589793238462643383 4338...) (Should be 3383 27950...) This was a monster of a calculation.
not sure of an equivalent phrase but you shouldn't have a problem using it. Im austalian and it just means that the preceding statement is very straight forward and easy,
Tazer I would tend to say probably as e and pi appear in lots of places, however, on the second iteration, it doesn't go to e (although it could after lots of iterations)
As someone who's also follicly challenged and had to get rid of it's hair roughly one year ago, I commend you to your desicion to approximate the sphere-shape a little bit quicker. It's a tough step but you"ll have to admit that you look so much better afterwards!
Assuming you know it goes to pi, but you didn't know pi's value. If the difference between the approximation of pi including the k'th and (k+1)'th term is less than 0,000 000 000 5 (5 at the end as you might round up), you know the k'th term has 10 correct digits
the easiest way is keep going and going. so if say first run we get 3 second 3.15 third 3.14159...... you start seeing which numbers stay the same farther and farther. and those must be accurate. thats the easiest way but of course means your last calculation you wont know how many digits are correct but youll know most. it also helps when you prove your formula actually gets pi
I'm just imagining in 3 centuries from now someone will find a cave wall where someone calculated pi to the 314159th digit but its off by 1. Fantastic video in any case.
![The biggest hand calculation in a century! [Pi Day 2024]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LIg-6glbLkU/mqdefault.jpg)
![The biggest hand calculation in a century! [Pi Day 2024]](/img/tr.png)
![กี่หมื่นฟ้า | Your Sky Series EP.1 [1/4]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vLGjxFL6U_I/mqdefault.jpg)
The accuracy on the first term was brilliant, especially considering that you used the Parker Square root of 10005.
Given that the actual is 10.024996, I don't think that broke things too badly.
Oscar Smith I think you mean 100.024997.
Well, the continued fraction [3, 7, 15, 1, 292] = 103993 / 33102 also yields 3.141592653... with less effort.
BTW, the way he subtracts numbers seems quite complicated to me O_o.
ROFL
I think you mean ~100
sqrt(10005)=100.025
Parker square root
More like the first-order Taylor series square root :D
It was an approximation, however he was *VERRY* close. Asking Siri (who uses Wolfram Alpha) even she approximate it to 100.025. Using Wolfram Alpha you get the approximation of 100.0249968757810...
It is a decent approximation - i think and error of 10^-7 is acceptable to be used in another approximation.
well, if you use a more accurate sqrt(10005), then you get more π.
426880*sqrt(10005)/13591409 ≈ 3.141592653589734207668453591578
ABaumstumpf he could've has 13 digits of precision on the 1st calculaion if he had used a more precise square root tho
"I am going to calculate pi by hand again..." All I could think was; "You must have a really big, and really round hand."
And he copied all the numbers in a big, round hand!
The hair, or lack of it, is awesome! I did the same thing last year and it was liberating not to worry about the impending baldness. It's a bit cold in the winter so invest in a cap.
That was a real Parker Square of a division.
The division was correct though. The subtraction however...
What seemed wrong to me about the division was Matt's statement at 9:11 "If I need extra bits on the end, I just put zeroes". Surely you have to bring down *exactly* one zero each time. Otherwise, you'll never have a zero in the answer - you'll have invisibly skipped them.
Luckily for Matt, (as calculated by calc, see www.isthe.com/chongo/tech/comp/calc/ ):
42698672 / 13591409 ~3.14159275171544024611
and Matt didn't get anywhere near the first 0 of the answer.
Taking more piss than a racetrack of thoroughbreds....
it’s not a parker square, it’s extremely accurate, more accurate than you ever meed
David Gould mate you would get a zero when the two numbers subtracted at the end are equal 0. He just didn’t go that far. The method was perfectly valid. You’re just confused.
Mind blown part was the most funny thing I have ever seen
I find it fascinating that, looking for a good decimal approximation of the number π, you have come up with an extremely accurate approximation of the constant e at 7:25. Although I don't know if it's a coincidence or not.
Euler number made a cameo!
:O this blew my mind. Didn't even notice that watching it the first time!
wow , correct upto 7 decimal places ,nice observations, even this is blowing my mind now
pi and e go hand in hand everywhere.... "Where there's a pi, there's an e"
@@omaanshkaushal3522squares are god's favorite exponents
that converges STUNNINGLY quickly. WOW.
weesh It had better: it's hideous!
Gold161803 It's amazing how many interpersonal relationships function more or less in this manner.
Every iteration gives approximately another 14 decimal places
13:45 the face I make every time I finish a calculation and my answer isnt any of the choices
7:25 27182818 (hmm... seems familiar...)
its the e
John Chessant I noticed that too. Coincidence? ...probably.
I wonder if there's any correlation or if its purely a really unlikely coincidence.
e = 3 = pi
I dont think it is a coincidense considering that 13591409 is the number from the formula. So when they defined this method of calculating Pi, they probably took the half of e and multiplied it by some power of 10.
Or it's really a super (un)lucky coincidense. xD
Pi Day is now both Einstein's birthday and Hawking's deathday. :(
It's also Karl Marx's deathday, so it evens out.
Fun odd fact, Dr Hawking was born 300 years to the day after Galileo Galilei's death. So, come March 14, 2318 we should have an awesome astrophysicist come back around, kind-of like a Halley's Comet of brains!
We can only wait in hope, now.
... if the world is still here by then. We live at a time when Hawking is no longer with us and the "most powerful man" on the planet doesn't have a clue.
Hawking died late yesterday
Hawking died on March 14th in the UK. GMT is named after Greenwich, which is in London, which is in England, ...
Love it. I want to see him do this with increasingly sophisticated calculation aids. Like if we granted him a slide rule, how much faster could he go?
Nice idea, but from my slide rule days, I remember it was hard to get 3 digits of accuracy, which was normally enough for most engineering tasks.
Calculating Pi is such an irrational thing to do.....
Almost transcendental.
approximating it is very rational though
@@IntergalacticPotato Only in 22/7 cases though.
K= 0 Mind = blown 🤯
How does my calculator even do it in 0.0001 sec 😂😂😂
Your calculator doesn't really calculate it, it's just a predetermined constant.
Wow crazy good estimate on sqrt 10,005! The actual answer is 100.02499, getting 100.025 in a handful of seconds off the back of a napkin was impressive.
Na, the approximation was incredible simple - still very accurate though.
ABaumstumpf What's the point of an approximation if it isnt incredibly simple?
KackBon3rdGen ....................
Yeah, no. It is to approximate something. This video even is about Pi - a number that needs to be approximated in most scenarios for the simple reason that it is impossible to show it with 100% accuracy as it is transcendental.
An approximation can be complicated for many reasons - fast convergance, easy hardware synthesis, easy to program, or interesting effects.
In some cases the approximation can be shown to converge to the real value, but when a specific approximation is used it can cancel out with other parts of the equation making it a lot simpler to use the approximation - which you wouldn't see if you used the 'real' value as a symbol.
The method he used is actually equivalent to a differential approximation. The reason that x2 is ignored is because as x tends to zero, d(x2) /dx is zero
In india, Even grade 6 students can do this approximations so its not like out of the box maths lol. Illiterate foreigners !!
11:08 It's an older meme but it checks out.
its never to late for extanded scenes
11:11
@@naxzed_it 11:14
I'm impressed that you did all this working out by hand, and more impressed that you made it that far before making a mistake.
Next year:
Calculating pi using the perfect curvature of Matt's bald head. Looking forward to that one.
Your head shaved look is awesome. Is it pi day special
subhash mirasi it was shaved in a video he did a few weeks ago :)
It was just Parker hair, anyway.
He was trying to find the surface area of a hemisphere
Pi R Squared Channel rest in peace
It's called the Parker hair
Billions must Pi
I see why they used this for a computer. They are especially amazing at division and subtraction. Binary makes it easier.
Tristan Ridley mainly because it’s pretty much the fastest converging equation for pi (about 14 digits per iteration!)
Hey Matt, it would be a great video to show (to some extent) why is there e at 7:25. I reckon it's connected with how the algorithm was conceived. j-invariant and all that
7:25 WTF?? y is e on the board?????
ron raisch woah, nice observation
I've learned enough mathematics to know that it's probably not at all a coincidence, and there's a valid reason that one of the "magic numbers" used in the series work out to a multiple of e/2. But I haven't learned enough mathematics to know what that reason is XD
I think it has something to do with the fact that e ^ (pi * √163) ≈ 262537412640768000 + 744. Someone smarter and less lazy than me can probably figure out why.
I'm... pretty sure that's an 8. Unless you're not talking about the glyph on the top row, 4th from the right.
Naturally it's there ;)
There’s a reason why you’re my favorite mathematician, Parker.
Compared to that first infinite series video done a few years back, this is a wonderful demonstration of how two different series converge on the same constant at different speeds. Incredible how the Chudnovsky gives you that many digits in just two terms!
"This is why I pay you the (slight pause) medium bucks!"
that cracks me up XD
Thanks for the exact 2 year anniversary of the last video that we did or you did to be exact exact exact about this pi calculating video
Hey Matt, quick observation I wanted to run by you.
Today I went back and watched your old video about approximating pi by rolling dice. I wanted to see how accurate this method could be, so I wrote up some code in python to automate it. I was messing around with the variables, like # of sides on the dice and number of dice rolled, and I was trying to optimize it to give the best answer possible. Something that I noticed was that when increasing the number of sides on the dice, accuracy didn't improve linearly. Instead, a highly-divisible number of sides like 30 was more accurate than 31-35, and 36 sides were more accurate than 37-39 sides, 40 sided dice were more accurate than dice with 41-45 sides, and so on. I thought this was really interesting, and was curious if you had any insights as to why using highly divisible dice might increase the accuracy of the program's estimate of pi?
Great vid as always, thanks for reading!!
It could be related to floating point errors. The highly divisible numbers have a lot of factors of 2, which are more accurately represented by floating point numbers.
Damn both this and the comment are both smart. I’d feel bad not leaving anything smart.
My 10 cents are that code isn’t perfect when doing physical things like dice or even doing anything random. Simulations aren’t perfect with it. Or that could be completely off topic.
@@Treviisolion wonder if he used an arbitrary precision module what it would be
considering your using the "math" library, thats the problem it can have more errors deviding more. the true way to simulate this is expressing it in a geometrical manner, you can start with an axis and find your way into a circle(which is what we are looking for anyways), this might be the case of the light beam reflection calculating pi(if you dont know what this means, there is a great video about by 3blue1brown i think), but again i might be wrong as im not familiar with this concept. well you commented 4 years ago, so i guess you alrdy solved this so yea gday
The mindblow and the sound of silence bits are the quality Standup(maths) this channel is worth watching
Chud bros we won
It hurts that he puts his decimal in the middle.
Love your work Matt! Strangely nice watching this sort of maths done by hand.
The actual square root of 10005 being 100.0249969, so really quite a good approximation. Considering you got 6 digits of pi and your only difference is at the 6th digit that's a really fantastic sequence!
That moment you google 42698672/13591409 and it comes up with this video.
10:53
What you have written down id the correct aproximation of pi to 7 decimal places as the next digit is a 5...
This video holds surprisingly high value in the meme economy, good work!
why is he writing decimal points like dot multiplication and dot multiplication like decimal points?
It's a british thing, I know sometimes it may be confusing
?
Dharsono Hartono, well in my country we use a comma as decimal separator, so 8·56 would be 8,56 (or 8.56) for example. And for multiplying we commonly write this symbol (·), for instance 5.6=30 would become 5·6=30.
I'm British and that's not a thing. Multiplication dot is in the middle and decimal point is at the bottom. Also, he's from Australia so that may be why.
Morgan Mitchell hmm, weird, not sure about multiplication sign but middle dot is still used as a decimal separator, usually when handwritten.
Source: www.quora.com/Whats-this-punctuation-·-How-can-I-type-it-on-my-computer-What-is-it-used-to-do
I've never seen that way of doing division before. And I'm glad we can fairly call it Parker Division after that little off-by-one..
Well let's just call it parker pi
Next year, calculate pi using the packing fill ratio of a bcc structure (sqrt(3)pi/8). Pack a box with oranges in a bcc structure and calculate the fill ratio. Basically, calculate pi using some fruits and a box
How long did it actually take for the working out? I was impressed with the 3.1415927 on the very first term. That is on the order of 1 millionth of a percent error, which is well within enough precision for many practical applications. The square root approximation was great, too.
Always love these Pi day videos
And now I know the Parker sphere.
So I spent a few hours working it out, but I discovered that if you take a regular polygon of N sides with a perimeter of 2pi the percentage of the way from the verticy to the midpoint so that you have a distance of 1 from the center very very quickly approaches about 18.35%. I find it very interesting that not only does this number converge, but it also converges very quickly! It took a while because I had to use the COH trig identity, the law of cosines, and the quadratic formula, in addition to a fair amount of algebra.
all i learned from this is that "
😅
Meeting you at the “Curious Incident” was such an amazing day- how can you make maths so much fun?!
Matt's Pi day video - 90% of comments about his hair :)
But seriously - whay happened?
He noticed a trend and decided to extrapolate.
Parker Cancer, it is harmless
Pi R Squared Channel
RIP....
Ivan Mazeppa congratulations, you're the first person in history to make a Parker Square joke that's actually funny
He's powering his brain using performance-enhancing radium injections
So sad Stephen Hawking died on Pi day. RIP a great mind :'(
WazzupKMS Einstein was born on pi day.
RIP Stephen Hawking, hold one fist in the air tonight :(
Yeah, he died today 😪
A damn good run for a sufferer of ALS. He provided us with such tremendous advances in physics that we must be forever grateful, but let it not be said that he was hindered from his goals by his horrible disease. The man will be a legend from now to the end of our species, like Archimedes before him!
:(
PS: It would be interesting, if it has even one more digit of accuracy, if you used a more exact estimation of the square route of 10005.
i feel like this would be an AMAZING way to practice reducing mistakes
Love the new haircut. Looks great! ;-)
The whole way to make the divisions at 7:10 is how they though me to do it in school. Instead of doing 9 rows, they made us darw a square with all the multiples.
k=0 is probably good enough to get you to the moon within a few yards of error.
nberedim I heard somewhere that 30 digits is more than enough for any practical purpose we will ever need. If I remember correctly, this is because it is approximate enough to be precise down to an atom’s width for the circumference of the observable universe...
@@vibaj16 I don't know if it's 30 or 40 digits, but yes that's the idea.
@@vibaj16 37, if I remember correctly.
And that's quite a bit more than any practical purpose will ever need.
That algorithm is remarkably accurate. It looks like approximating the square root is what caused most of the difference. Inputting 426880 * sqrt(10005) / 13591409 into Google's built in calculator gives me 3.14159265359, which is accurate to that many significant figures (the last digit would be an 8 if truncated, but the next digit is a 9, so Google is rounding up).
Do your long division in binary, you can avoid all this "how many times does x go into y" and just have "does x go into y"
re: the approximation, that IS stunningly fast; re: the hair, I just thought "oh thank god he finally bit the bullet and did it" but sounds like you thought "thank god I finally got to do it" haha :). and it looks good!
Matt... great to see you using the same tricks I have been using for decades, including the massive division...
And yes, it is sad that it is both Einstein's birthday and Hawking's event-horizon day. Yet another tie between two great individuals.
13:34 lol. "This is why I pay you the medium bucks" Trent deserves the big bucks!
355/113 is about as good as this first term. Probably easier to divide by hand as well. :)
That isn’t part of the chudnovsky algorithm, so yeah a little irrelevant
@@cringeSpeedrunner bro replied to a 5 year old comment trying to correct something that didn't need to be corrected
@@doppled Bro tried to correct a correction to a 5 year old comment
Thanks for the ridiculous and ridiculously amazingly pi day video
MIND ≈ BLOWN
You look so much better with your new hair(less) style!
Strangely enough I think your shaved head accentuates the hair you still have while your unshaven head accentuates the thinning hair/bold spot.
lets chud it up rq
sharty rise up
I did a calculation for k=2, mostly by hand, using wolfram alpha for the final summations, division, and checking my work. I used Newton's method to get √10005 to be ~2050048640064001/20495363200160 (correct to about 28 decimal places)
In the end, I got the following monster of a fraction:
698133748150685240799274301253225532453866700800000/222222873914907800216492660300255490391849918427129. It is correct to 27 decimal places. (3.141592653589793238462643383 4338...) (Should be 3383 27950...)
This was a monster of a calculation.
11:05 - 11:20 - I want to certify this section as an official dank meme.
There’s something Douglas Adams-y about you when you do the mind-blowing bits.
That wrong digit in the beginning of a long calculation is so relatable
So he finally shaved his hair.
This needs more likes. Love this dude. Thanks for the mind blow
6:22 "42... 69..." and then it cuts away lol 😂
Everyone's going on about his hair, but we really need to appreciate the high quality memes in the video
Parker hair
Great vid, as usual. A few genuine LOL moments, like your approximating a sphere.
HAPPY PI DAY!!! But let's face it, it's no longer happy... RIP Stephen Hawking T_T
Wooohoo for the new look!! Happy Pi Day. RIP Dr. Hawking. Happy Birthday Einstein!
Is there a GIF version of 11:12 yet, and if not, can I make one?
not sure of an equivalent phrase but you shouldn't have a problem using it. Im austalian and it just means that the preceding statement is very straight forward and easy,
"Bob's your uncle is an expression of unknown origin, that means "and there it is" or "and there you have it.""
Thats a better definition
I love that 666 appears immediately after the mistake. It wasn't your fault, you were cursed!
I can guess any number you are thinking!
1) Choose any number
2) +1
3) minus the number you chose!
4) BOOM!! The answer is 1.
*cries in spanish*
Hey Matt. X
Bald Parker square 😎
Using the Chudnovsky algorithm?
The maths classroom has risen
Can someone tell me what discovery show does Matt parker do?
Outrageous Acts of Science, wikipedia says and imdb confirms it
billions must calculate pi
Should be the Bloodnovsky algorithm, sounds scarier.
when you forget to bring your calculator to a math exam
Anyone notice e at 7:25?
[Mind Blown Clip]
Is it a coincidence?
Tazer I would tend to say probably as e and pi appear in lots of places, however, on the second iteration, it doesn't go to e (although it could after lots of iterations)
oh
Where is the e?
I think Parker Pi might just be my new fav kids show.
Hello there. Happy (sad) π day! We'll remember you, Stephen Hawking.
Hoo yun zhe also those kids from Florida
Yeah:(
As someone who's also follicly challenged and had to get rid of it's hair roughly one year ago, I commend you to your desicion to approximate the sphere-shape a little bit quicker. It's a tough step but you"ll have to admit that you look so much better afterwards!
how can you calculate how many digits are certainly right without already knowing pi? is that possible?
Assuming you know it goes to pi, but you didn't know pi's value. If the difference between the approximation of pi including the k'th and (k+1)'th term is less than 0,000 000 000 5 (5 at the end as you might round up), you know the k'th term has 10 correct digits
the easiest way is keep going and going. so if say first run we get 3 second 3.15 third 3.14159......
you start seeing which numbers stay the same farther and farther. and those must be accurate. thats the easiest way but of course means your last calculation you wont know how many digits are correct but youll know most.
it also helps when you prove your formula actually gets pi
What a great approximation. It got you within just a hair of Pi.
happy π-day!
Cr42yguy Stephen hawking has died (RIP his soul) so it is a day of mourning
Mythic IQ I know, I just didn't want to mention it in my post. I think the whole scientific community is quite sad about his passing.
3:48 “We gunna FLY through this!”
_famous last words_
where did his hair go?
parker square of a haircut
15:40
The great thing is I always get a present from Matt for my birthday, can't wait for the next one. :D
What happened to your hair?
A freak shoe shining accident.
15:40
Breaking Bad
I'm just imagining in 3 centuries from now someone will find a cave wall where someone calculated pi to the 314159th digit but its off by 1. Fantastic video in any case.
outrageous acts of science
I cant describe the beauty of this video. Its 100% funny material! Parker is no longer Michael Palin doppelgänger, but still amazing.
This is why I am thankful for computers, though I do appreciate that method for dividing larger numbers.