Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Rationalising factor for Pi

  1. #1

    Thread Starter
    Addicted Member Active's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Lat: 13° 4' 46" N, Long: 80° 15' 20" E
    Posts
    209

    Rationalising factor for Pi

    Well,.. if a irrational number like Sqroot(8) can have a rationalising
    factor like Sqroot(2) what is the rationalising factor for pi ??

    sqr(8) = 2*Sqr(2)

    Sqr(8)*sqr(2) = 2*Sqr(2)*Sqr(2) = 4{rational}

    ---
    My question.

    pi * x = rational number

    what is x ? is it possible ?
    Last edited by Active; May 2nd, 2001 at 11:47 PM.
    If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing !!!
    [Download Tag Editing Tools.]

  2. #2
    Addicted Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    California
    Posts
    154
    2*Sqr(2)*Sqr(2)=4
    Haven't a clue about your question though.
    VB-World addict!

    All spelling errors are undocumented words!
    http://www.bells.f2s.com

  3. #3

    Thread Starter
    Addicted Member Active's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Lat: 13° 4' 46" N, Long: 80° 15' 20" E
    Posts
    209
    Sorry, that was a genuine mistake !
    I was thinking of putting 2 * 2 but
    ate the half of it .


    ---

    I actually want to know if there is a posibility that
    x exists.
    If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing !!!
    [Download Tag Editing Tools.]

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Emden, Germany
    Posts
    63

    hmm

    Well the only solution to this should be:

    x=1/Pi

    or a lot other expressions that contain Pi or somehow the definition of Pi (eg. 2/Pi,1/(2Pi) ...)
    I guess, you can also proof that the rationalising factor has to contain Pi in some way. But my theoretical math lessons are far gone...

  5. #5
    transcendental analytic kedaman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    0x002F2EA8
    Posts
    7,221
    X=A/(atn(1)*B)
    Use
    writing software in C++ is like driving rivets into steel beam with a toothpick.
    writing haskell makes your life easier:
    reverse (p (6*9)) where p x|x==0=""|True=chr (48+z): p y where (y,z)=divMod x 13
    To throw away OOP for low level languages is myopia, to keep OOP is hyperopia. To throw away OOP for a high level language is insight.

  6. #6

    Thread Starter
    Addicted Member Active's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Lat: 13° 4' 46" N, Long: 80° 15' 20" E
    Posts
    209
    Actually I did not want such solutions...

    For the same reason I am not taking

    x = 1/Sqr(8) or x = 1/Sqr(2) as a Required solution for

    Sqr(8) * x = rational

    ...
    If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing !!!
    [Download Tag Editing Tools.]

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Emden, Germany
    Posts
    63
    Arctan(1)=45 degrees = Pi/4, so we're back at Pi

  8. #8
    transcendental analytic kedaman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    0x002F2EA8
    Posts
    7,221
    what are you intending to do then? pi is unique not like squareroots
    Use
    writing software in C++ is like driving rivets into steel beam with a toothpick.
    writing haskell makes your life easier:
    reverse (p (6*9)) where p x|x==0=""|True=chr (48+z): p y where (y,z)=divMod x 13
    To throw away OOP for low level languages is myopia, to keep OOP is hyperopia. To throw away OOP for a high level language is insight.

  9. #9
    transcendental analytic kedaman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    0x002F2EA8
    Posts
    7,221
    are you saying x>1 v (x<0 ^ x>-1)
    Use
    writing software in C++ is like driving rivets into steel beam with a toothpick.
    writing haskell makes your life easier:
    reverse (p (6*9)) where p x|x==0=""|True=chr (48+z): p y where (y,z)=divMod x 13
    To throw away OOP for low level languages is myopia, to keep OOP is hyperopia. To throw away OOP for a high level language is insight.

  10. #10
    Frenzied Member
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
    Posts
    1,151

    Not to be found.

    Pi, e, and certain other real numbers are called transcendental numbers. In some branch of mathematics, there is a theorem which proves that such numbers belong in a class by themselves.

    They cannot be expressed using a finite number of simple arithmetic operations without using transcendental numbers (roots and powers allowed). They cannot be the roots of a polynomial with rational coefficients.

    On the basis of the above, I believe that your search for a so called rationalizing factor is doomed.

    Oddly bit of related information.

    e^i*Pi = -1

    Where i is SquareRoot(-1), and e is 2.71828...

    BTW: I am pretty sure that numbers which can be roots of a polynomial are called algebraic numbers. The algebraic numbers are a bit stranger than you might expect. For 2nd, 3rd, & 4th order polynomials, there are direct formulae or algoithms which result in determing the roots. Except for special cases, the roots of higher order polynomials cannot be determined by any direct formulae or algorithms. You can use numerical methods to get accurate approximations, but there is no formula or expression which precisely describes the roots using a finite number of arithmetic operations. There is nothing remotely similar to the formula for the roots of a quadratic.
    Live long & prosper.

    The Dinosaur from prehistoric era prior to computers.

    Eschew obfuscation!
    If a billion people believe a foolish idea, it is still a foolish idea!
    VB.net 2010 Express
    64Bit & 32Bit Windows 7 & Windows XP. I run 4 operating systems on a single PC.

  11. #11

    Thread Starter
    Addicted Member Active's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Lat: 13° 4' 46" N, Long: 80° 15' 20" E
    Posts
    209

    Re: Not to be found.

    Originally posted by Guv
    Oddly bit of related information.

    e^i*Pi = -1

    Where i is SquareRoot(-1), and e is 2.71828...
    IMHO, that's not at all odd..

    It's just the exponential form of the complex number -1+i*0 (or)

    1*[Cos(pi)+iSin(pi)] (or) 1*[Cos(180o)+i Sin(180o)]

    ...
    r*[Cos(theta)+iSin(theta)] can be expressed as r*e(i*theta)

    Where r =Sqr(a^2+b^2) is the modulus of complex number a+ib
    and theta is the principal argument of the complex number such that
    r*cos(theta) = a and r*sin(theta)=b
    ....

    On the basis of the above, I believe that your search for a so called rationalizing factor is doomed.
    Yes.. I have to agree with this.
    If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing !!!
    [Download Tag Editing Tools.]

  12. #12

    Thread Starter
    Addicted Member Active's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Lat: 13° 4' 46" N, Long: 80° 15' 20" E
    Posts
    209
    What that means is..

    I can similarly show that... e(2*pi*i)= 1
    If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing !!!
    [Download Tag Editing Tools.]

  13. #13

    Thread Starter
    Addicted Member Active's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Lat: 13° 4' 46" N, Long: 80° 15' 20" E
    Posts
    209
    Here is another

    e(pi/2)*i = i
    If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing !!!
    [Download Tag Editing Tools.]

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  



Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width