|
-
May 2nd, 2001, 10:56 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Addicted Member
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.
-
May 2nd, 2001, 11:27 PM
#2
Addicted Member
2*Sqr(2)*Sqr(2)=4
Haven't a clue about your question though.
-
May 2nd, 2001, 11:51 PM
#3
Thread Starter
Addicted Member
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.
-
May 3rd, 2001, 02:36 AM
#4
Member
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...
-
May 3rd, 2001, 05:59 AM
#5
transcendental analytic
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.
-
May 3rd, 2001, 06:27 AM
#6
Thread Starter
Addicted Member
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
...
-
May 3rd, 2001, 06:31 AM
#7
Member
Arctan(1)=45 degrees = Pi/4, so we're back at Pi
-
May 3rd, 2001, 06:32 AM
#8
transcendental analytic
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.
-
May 3rd, 2001, 07:22 AM
#9
transcendental analytic
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.
-
May 3rd, 2001, 02:30 PM
#10
Frenzied Member
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.
-
May 4th, 2001, 12:15 AM
#11
Thread Starter
Addicted Member
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.
-
May 4th, 2001, 12:17 AM
#12
Thread Starter
Addicted Member
What that means is..
I can similarly show that... e(2*pi*i)= 1
-
May 4th, 2001, 12:41 AM
#13
Thread Starter
Addicted Member
Here is another
e(pi/2)*i = i
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width
|