# The Last Digit of Pi is Zero?



## Cyrus C. (Mar 23, 2010)

I think I'm right, but I know there are a lot of intelligent people on the forums who could prove me wrong.

The last digit of Pi would have to be 0 right, because if Pi was just 3.14, you could make it 3.140, making the last digit of Pi 0, right?

I recently had an argument with a friend about this & it has kind of been bugging me.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Mar 23, 2010)

Pi is irrational, meaning that there is no zero at the end. Even if you took th nth digit of pi and added a 0 to the end, it would be incorrect.


----------



## iasimp1997 (Mar 23, 2010)

http://www.eveandersson.com/pi/digits/1000000
It's actually one.


----------



## DaijoCube (Mar 23, 2010)

miniGOINGS is right.
Cyrus C. is not.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Mar 23, 2010)

iasimp1997 said:


> http://www.eveandersson.com/pi/digits/1000000
> It's actually one.



Pi doesn't stop at 1 million.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Mar 23, 2010)

pi never ends, so it doesn't have a last digit.


----------



## LewisJ (Mar 23, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> iasimp1997 said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.eveandersson.com/pi/digits/1000000
> ...



As much as I dislike most of iasimp's attempts at humor, I think you missed the joke that time. 

As mini explained - if you take the first n (any n) digits of pi and start slapping 0s on the end, eventually one of them will be incorrect. Pi is irrational and the digits never end, which means you can never get to the point at which you can throw 0s on the end and have it be the same thing. You can't really generalize anything finite to an infinite scale - it just doesn't work the same way.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Mar 23, 2010)

DaijoCube said:


> miniGOINGS is right.
> Cyrus C. is not.



Don't worry Cola, you still get 2nd place!


----------



## Edmund (Mar 23, 2010)

Can we prove it doesn't end? I just think after looking at the Infinite Monkey Typing Theorem (I think I just butchered the name) it's hard to believe it doesn't end.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Mar 23, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> Pi is irrational, meaning that there is no zero at the end. Even if you took th nth digit of pi and added a 0 to the end, it would be incorrect.



3.14n'0

'=Repeating forever sign

n= all the digits of Pi



Edmund said:


> Can we prove it doesn't end? I just think after looking at the Infinite Monkey Typing Theorem (I think I just butchered the name) it's hard to believe it doesn't end.



Another debate I had with the same friend.




LewisJ said:


> Cyrus C. said:
> 
> 
> > iasimp1997 said:
> ...



I don't get it.

EDIT: Oh, was he being sarcastic? I thought he was just stupid.


----------



## Muesli (Mar 23, 2010)

I'm pretty sure Pi is undefinable... I.E it goes on forever.


----------



## masterofthebass (Mar 23, 2010)

and they say you have to be good at math to solve a rubik's cube....


----------



## miniGOINGS (Mar 23, 2010)

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57091.html

I lied, it's 10.


----------



## LewisJ (Mar 23, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> miniGOINGS said:
> 
> 
> > Pi is irrational, meaning that there is no zero at the end. Even if you took th nth digit of pi and added a 0 to the end, it would be incorrect.
> ...



To make use of your alternate explanation in the form 
3.14n0
where n = all the other digits of pi

n is not finite, n is impossible to define in this case; you can't slap a zero on the end of something you can't even define!

There IS no last digit. The last digit is impossible to determine, just as it is impossible to determine what move sequence the last person ever to solve a rubik's cube or nearly identically functioning 3d puzzle will use, because we simply can't get to that last one.


----------



## DaijoCube (Mar 23, 2010)

Edmund said:


> Can we prove it doesn't end? I just think after looking at the Infinite Monkey Typing Theorem (I think I just butchered the name) it's hard to believe it doesn't end.



Yes, we did.

I think Gauss, or I don't remember who demonstrated that if Pi was not irrational (it would end sometime) a pair number could be impair (or odd in english I think...).


----------



## Daniel Wu (Mar 23, 2010)

masterofthebass said:


> and they say you have to be good at math to solve a rubik's cube....


Haha. Apparently not.


----------



## DaijoCube (Mar 23, 2010)

LewisJ said:


> Cyrus C. said:
> 
> 
> > miniGOINGS said:
> ...



Well we can't, but it is possible to know what will be the sequence of the last solve...


----------



## Cyrus C. (Mar 23, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57091.html
> 
> I lied, it's 10.



Ah, I think I understand it now. But I don't understand "I lied, it's 10."



masterofthebass said:


> and they say you have to be good at math to solve a rubik's cube....



I consider myself good at math, I was just thinking radically.


----------



## ianini (Mar 23, 2010)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> pi never ends, so it doesn't have a last digit.



My fun facts in my agenda book say that it has been "accurately calculated to 1,241,000,000 decimal places".


----------



## miniGOINGS (Mar 23, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> Ah, I think I understand it now. But I don't understand "I lied, it's 10."



The last digit of Pi is 10. It's a proven fact.

Did that link clear it up a little bit?


----------



## DaijoCube (Mar 23, 2010)

ianini said:


> CuBeOrDiE said:
> 
> 
> > pi never ends, so it doesn't have a last digit.
> ...



'Cause we don't know what's next


----------



## masterofthebass (Mar 23, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> masterofthebass said:
> 
> 
> > and they say you have to be good at math to solve a rubik's cube....
> ...



you're radical thinking is quite flawed. Adding arbitrary 0s to any number doesn't make it end in a 0. the number 2342313412349012340000000123412348974589234 ends in a 0 digit too, if you feel like adding 0s to the end of it. it can be done with any rational number, so there's no point in arguing this in the way you did.


----------



## LewisJ (Mar 23, 2010)

DaijoCube said:


> Well we can't, but it is possible to know what will be the sequence of the last solve...



Uh, logic fail?
How in the world is it possible to know the sequence of the last solve? There are literally an infinite number of solutions to any given scramble of a rubik's cube, and you don't even know WHEN the last solve will be!


----------



## Cyrus C. (Mar 23, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> Cyrus C. said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, I think I understand it now. But I don't understand "I lied, it's 10."
> ...



I thought it did, but now you confused me. Was my theory proved or disproved?


----------



## DaijoCube (Mar 23, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> Cyrus C. said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, I think I understand it now. But I don't understand "I lied, it's 10."
> ...



It's not a proven fact at all.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Mar 23, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> I thought it did, but now you confused me. Was my theory proved or disproved?



10 =/= 0, so I just disproved it.

So you understand what I (and many others) are saying?


----------



## Cyrus C. (Mar 23, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> Cyrus C. said:
> 
> 
> > I thought it did, but now you confused me. Was my theory proved or disproved?
> ...



I'm not sure... no. I might as well do it now... :fp.


----------



## DaijoCube (Mar 23, 2010)

LewisJ said:


> DaijoCube said:
> 
> 
> > Well we can't, but it is possible to know what will be the sequence of the last solve...
> ...



Well, I might create a philosophical debate here. At a specific moment in time, if we could know the position, speed, acceleration, mass and nature of all particle in the Universe, it would be MATHEMATICALLY possible to calculate every single event in the past and future.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Mar 23, 2010)

If you haven't caught on, the "10" thing was a joke. If you can "prove" it's 0, I can prove it's 10.


----------



## r_517 (Mar 23, 2010)

the last digits of 1/3, 1/7, 1/13 are 0 with your theory


----------



## miniGOINGS (Mar 23, 2010)

r_517 said:


> the last digits of 1/3, 1/7, 1/13 are 0 with your theory



My theory, or Cola's? I think you're talking about his, but I'm not sure...


----------



## Cyrus C. (Mar 23, 2010)

r_517 said:


> the last digits of 1/3, 1/7, 1/13 are 0 with your theory



Read the link that Goins posted.


----------



## r_517 (Mar 23, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> r_517 said:
> 
> 
> > the last digits of 1/3, 1/7, 1/13 are 0 with your theory
> ...



his


----------



## miniGOINGS (Mar 23, 2010)

r_517 said:


> his





Yea, people, one thing to note in that link is:



> It does not matter whether the number you consider is rational or irrational. What matters is that the decimal expansion is infinite. Both pi and 1/3 can be written as infinite series:
> 
> 1/3 = 3/10 + 3/100 + 3/1000 + ...
> 
> ...


----------



## Cyrus C. (Mar 23, 2010)

r_517 said:


> miniGOINGS said:
> 
> 
> > r_517 said:
> ...



Yeah with yours they would be 10. I get it now. But 10 isn't a digit.


----------



## r_517 (Mar 23, 2010)

as PI is defined as an irrational number, it does not have an ending digit, which means you can't add a zero to its *end*.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Mar 23, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> Yeah with yours they would be 10. I get it now. But 10 isn't a digit.





miniGOINGS said:


> If you can "prove" it's 0, I can prove it's 10.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Mar 23, 2010)

r_517 said:


> as PI is defined as an irrational number, it does not have an ending digit, which means you can't add a zero to its *end*.



But 1/3, 1/7, 1/17, & all the other numbers you were comparing it to were rational.



miniGOINGS said:


> Cyrus C. said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah with yours they would be 10. I get it now. But 10 isn't a digit.
> ...



What are you trying to say?


----------



## miniGOINGS (Mar 23, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> r_517 said:
> 
> 
> > as PI is defined as an irrational number, it does not have an ending digit, which means you can't add a zero to its *end*.
> ...





> It does not matter whether the number you consider is rational or irrational. What matters is that the decimal expansion is infinite. Both pi and 1/3 can be written as infinite series:
> 
> 1/3 = 3/10 + 3/100 + 3/1000 + ...
> 
> pi = 3 + 1/10 + 4/100 + 1/1000 + ...



EDIT: I was basically just saying that it's not 0, because 10 isn't a digit.


----------



## daniel0731ex (Mar 23, 2010)

*actually, the value of pi changes, so perhaps once in a while it would be a rational number*




LewisJ said:


> DaijoCube said:
> 
> 
> > Well we can't, but it is possible to know what will be the sequence of the last solve...
> ...



i believe that it's just a play on word.


----------



## Kian (Mar 23, 2010)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_π_is_irrational

Irrational numbers have no last digit. There is no argument.


----------



## r_517 (Mar 23, 2010)

pages turn so fast


----------



## r_517 (Mar 23, 2010)

gonna prove it:

suppose PI = 3.14159.....0 and 0 is its ending number. and there are n digits after the decimal point. then PI*10^n=314159...0, which is an integer.
so PI = 314159...0/10^n. this contradicts that it is an irrational number, which means it cannot be written in the form like a/b which a and b are both integers


----------



## DaijoCube (Mar 23, 2010)

daniel0731ex said:


> *actually, the value of pi changes, so perhaps once in a while it would be a rational number*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It is not.

If we are only made of matter and there is no other force than does made by the matter, then everything is predictable.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Mar 23, 2010)

daniel0731ex said:


> *actually, the value of pi changes, so perhaps once in a while it would be a rational number*



Pi, the mathimatical constant, changes?


----------



## Cyrus C. (Mar 23, 2010)

LewisJ said:


> There are literally an infinite number of solutions to any given scramble of a rubik's cube



Are there, excluding using stuff like (R R')x y?


----------



## DaijoCube (Mar 23, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> daniel0731ex said:
> 
> 
> > *actually, the value of pi changes, so perhaps once in a while it would be a rational number*
> ...



LOL at daniel, that was a cute thought


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Mar 23, 2010)

10 is not a digit 

lol?


----------



## miniGOINGS (Mar 23, 2010)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> 10 is not a digit
> 
> lol?



Or you could just go back to the other thread because you have absolutely no idea what this one is about. Please read my other posts about "10".


----------



## r_517 (Mar 23, 2010)

add to my prove at #44:

PI has already been proved as irrational many years ago, and there r many ways to prove it as long as u learned a bit calculus.


----------



## LewisJ (Mar 23, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> LewisJ said:
> 
> 
> > There are literally an infinite number of solutions to any given scramble of a rubik's cube
> ...



Sure. Scramble a cube, then turn it however the hell you please for however long you please and then start solving it. That was a solution to the scramble. 

Daijo, us being made of matter does not make everything predictable to the point that you can say what the last solve of a rubik's cube ever will be. I'm not even going to bother arguing this one with you, anyone who has had HS physics knows how ridiculous your claim is.


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Mar 23, 2010)

Like everyone says, it's irrational. Sides, take 2.3. Add a 0. 2.30. Doesn't really change the value at all. the 'last' (there isn't) value might as well be 00000000000000.


----------



## DaijoCube (Mar 23, 2010)

LewisJ said:


> Cyrus C. said:
> 
> 
> > LewisJ said:
> ...



There is not a time where the sum of all forces won't be equal to the mass times the acceleration. I want to argue on this, but you must let your judgment aside. I'm in pure sciences and I love maths and physics over all other classes. I'm not saying that because I don't know anything.


----------



## Diniz (Mar 23, 2010)

DaijoCube said:


> Edmund said:
> 
> 
> > I think Gauss, or I don't remember who demonstrated that if Pi was not irrational (it would end sometime) a pair number could be impair (or odd in english I think...).
> ...


----------



## r_517 (Mar 23, 2010)

Diniz said:


> DaijoCube said:
> 
> 
> > Edmund said:
> ...


----------



## koreancuber (Mar 23, 2010)

Off topic : This is the fastest growing thread I've EVER seen. I the number of new posts: 170. I look at the thread numbers, 5. Lol. How can you know the last number when you don't know it?


----------



## miniGOINGS (Mar 23, 2010)

koreancuber said:


> Off topic : This is the fastest growing thread I've EVER seen. I the number of new posts: 170. I look at the thread numbers, 5. Lol. How can you know the last number when you don't know it?



I actually think the Healthcare thread is a little bit faster than this, but yea.


----------



## Stefan (Mar 23, 2010)

LewisJ said:


> n = all the other digits of pi
> 
> n is not finite, *n is impossible to define* in this case



Um... you *did* define it right there.


----------



## koreancuber (Mar 23, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> koreancuber said:
> 
> 
> > Off topic : This is the fastest growing thread I've EVER seen. I the number of new posts: 170. I look at the thread numbers, 5. Lol. How can you know the last number when you don't know it?
> ...



I was about to mention that also. These two threads have been causing the thread replies to grow exponentially. Every single minute a replie comes in, making me have to read the reply.  I wish there was a thread ignorer. (or something like that)


----------



## LewisJ (Mar 23, 2010)

DaijoCube said:


> LewisJ said:
> 
> 
> > Cyrus C. said:
> ...



Newton's second law has nothing to do with time (other than that a = d/dt v), which is in theory infinite, and thus, we do not know when the last solve of a rubik's cube will occur. In a less theory-based thought process, consider this: If I pick up a rubik's cube - completely ignoring the time issue - what calculations, simulations, or analyses can you do to predict the entire move sequence I will use to solve it?


----------



## LewisJ (Mar 23, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> LewisJ said:
> 
> 
> > n = all the other digits of pi
> ...



By define I meant define explicitly, as in, writing the string out completely


----------



## joey (Mar 23, 2010)

0 IS the last number of Pi.


----------



## qqwref (Mar 23, 2010)

Hi there. This topic needs a good explanation of the Decimal Place Value System we know and love (but rarely look into deeply!). Having a not-quite-full understanding of this is where questions such as this topic's and the 0.9~ thing come from.

First off, the place value system does not define the number itself, but just represents it. It's an extremely convenient way to represent a number because you can get as close as you want with only a finite number of digits (and more digits = you can get closer). So that's pretty cool.
Second, the place value system basically constructs numbers by adding x + y/10 + z/100 + ..., where all the variables are integers. Anyway, as I've said we can get arbitrarily close to representing every number, but we can't exactly represent the number unless it can be written as some integer divided by some power of 10. So the important thing here is that if we put enough digits, we can get infinitely close to the number we want - and thus represent the number itself, for all intents and purposes.
Third, the real numbers as we normally define them do not contain any infinitely small intervals. What I mean is, if you take any two really close real numbers and subtract them, the number you will get is going to be close to 0 but only finitely close - unless it's 0, it will be at least as large as 1/x for some large enough integer x. This is a consequence of the definition of real numbers, which I'm not going to get into. Point is, this is pretty important because it means that if we define a number that is infinitely close to some other number (less than 1/x apart for every positive integer x), they are the same.

So what's this mean for our pi problem? Suppose you write out all the digits of pi (yes, ALL of them, infinitely many) and then stick a 0 at the end. Does that even mean anything? Not really, because remember that the place value system only has places for finitely numbered digits. There is no "infiniteth digit" because 1/(10^infinity) would be an infinitely small number and therefore equal to 0 (meaningless) in the real number system. So the place value system simply won't allow you to write a 0 'after' all the digits of pi because you can never get to the end anyway. After all, if you ever did reach the end it would mean that the digits of pi stop - that you can represent pi with some finite number of digits. But then pi would be a rational number (a fraction made out of integers), and it's actually been proven that that isn't the case. So talking about putting a 0 after all the digits of pi, or even about what the 'last digit' is, makes no sense at all. These concepts only exist in terms of the place value system, and the place value system only defines things in terms of finite numbers. Beyond that, any questions are meaningless.


----------



## koreancuber (Mar 23, 2010)

Should I make a poll?


----------



## DaijoCube (Mar 23, 2010)

LewisJ said:


> DaijoCube said:
> 
> 
> > LewisJ said:
> ...


I can't, nobody can. I said it was POSSIBLE. Not humanly possible though.

Human race necessary has an end (because the sun has an end), therefore we ''could'' know when the last Rubik would be solve.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Mar 23, 2010)

qq, what 0.9~ thing?


----------



## Stefan (Mar 24, 2010)

Pi in base pi is 1.0, so it's indeed 0, case closed. Or it's 1, your choice.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Mar 24, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Pi in base pi is 1.0, so it's indeed 0, case closed.



I've never thought about using a different base (other than dec I mean). That seems like a legit answer though.


----------



## Muesli (Mar 24, 2010)

DaijoCube said:


> LewisJ said:
> 
> 
> > DaijoCube said:
> ...


When the sun goes pop what's to say we haven't colonised other planets?


----------



## Stefan (Mar 24, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> qq, what 0.9~ thing?



That 0.9999999..... = 1.


----------



## DaijoCube (Mar 24, 2010)

It is, and it's quite cool


----------



## DaijoCube (Mar 24, 2010)

Musli4brekkies said:


> DaijoCube said:
> 
> 
> > LewisJ said:
> ...


Let me reformulate. If human race was to be extincted, it would be possible to know what would be the sequence of the last solve of a rubik cube.


----------



## CubesOfTheWorld (Mar 24, 2010)

My opinion


Spoiler






Spoiler






Spoiler






Spoiler






Spoiler






Spoiler






Spoiler






Spoiler






Spoiler






Spoiler



Pi goes on forever, so it does not actually end with any particular number.


----------



## Chapuunka (Mar 24, 2010)

And the problem I see with this is that even if there were a last digit, and you added a zero onto it, you could easily keep adding on zeroes into a new infinity using the same logic.


----------



## Mastersonian (Mar 24, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> And the problem I see with this is that even if there were a last digit, and you added a zero onto it, you could easily keep adding on zeroes into a new infinity using the same logic.



*caugh* Sig Figs *caugh*


----------



## daniel0731ex (Mar 24, 2010)

this thread got knocked up so quickly.


----------



## TioMario (Mar 24, 2010)

There isn't such thing as the last digit of PI in the first place.
It's an irrational number, what means it has INFINITE numbers after the comma.

For more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_number#Completeness


----------



## Neo63 (Mar 24, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Pi in base pi is 1.0, so it's indeed 0, case closed. Or it's 1, your choice.



LOL win proof. 

It is possible to use irrational bases right?


----------



## Diniz (Mar 24, 2010)

Neo63 said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > Pi in base pi is 1.0, so it's indeed 0, case closed. Or it's 1, your choice.
> ...



The only problem of irrational bases is that the representation may be not unique.


----------



## Escher (Mar 24, 2010)

DaijoCube said:


> Well, I might create a philosophical debate here. At a specific moment in time, if we could know the position, speed, acceleration, mass and nature of all particle in the Universe, it would be MATHEMATICALLY possible to calculate every single event in the past and future.



Learn2quantum


----------



## TioMario (Mar 24, 2010)

Neo63 said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > Pi in base pi is 1.0, so it's indeed 0, case closed. Or it's 1, your choice.
> ...



Logarithm...

\( Log b (a) = c <=> b^c = a \) / a>0 ; b>0 ; b≠1 ; c is a real number.


----------



## blah (Mar 24, 2010)

DaijoCube said:


> I think Gauss, or I don't remember who demonstrated that if Pi was not irrational (it would end sometime) a pair number could be impair (or odd in english I think...).


Firstly, "not irrational" != "it would end sometime". 1/3 is rational but it never ends. Secondly, if Pi is not irrational, i.e. rational, then all monkeys can fly whenever Pi is rational.

Simple logic: \( \forall Q[\neg P \Rightarrow [P \Rightarrow Q]] \).



masterofthebass said:


> *you're* radical thinking is quite flawed. Adding arbitrary 0s to any number doesn't make it end in a 0. the number 2342313412349012340000000123412348974589234 ends in a 0 digit too, if you feel like adding 0s to the end of it. *it can be done with any rational number*, so there's no point in arguing this in the way you did.


Firstly, lolyoure. Secondly, 1/3.



Diniz said:


> O and i think Lambert proof was the first one and *sub* 1800


LOL.



TioMario said:


> Neo63 said:
> 
> 
> > StefanPochmann said:
> ...


Uruguay: not a good place for mathing.


----------



## LewisJ (Mar 24, 2010)

Escher said:


> DaijoCube said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I might create a philosophical debate here. At a specific moment in time, if we could know the position, speed, acceleration, mass and nature of all particle in the Universe, it would be MATHEMATICALLY possible to calculate every single event in the past and future.
> ...



Did I miss a deleted post or something?

anyway, daijo you're again making the comparison between finite and infinite. Once you've predicted the future forever and ever and ever, you have to search through that infinite future for the LAST occurrence of a cube being solved. Simply impossible to do - one of the key ideas behind the word infinite.


----------



## TioMario (Mar 24, 2010)

DaijoCube said:


> Well, I might create a philosophical debate here. At a specific moment in time, if we could know the position, speed, acceleration, mass and nature of all particle in the Universe, it would be MATHEMATICALLY possible to calculate every single event in the past and future.



What the...? 
Mathematics isn't the same as physics, you can't use mathematics in the real world without using the physical laws. Now, what do you mean with 
"every single event in the past and future"?


----------



## LewisJ (Mar 24, 2010)

TioMario said:


> DaijoCube said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I might create a philosophical debate here. At a specific moment in time, if we could know the position, speed, acceleration, mass and nature of all particle in the Universe, it would be MATHEMATICALLY possible to calculate every single event in the past and future.
> ...



By knowing the elementary properties of every particle it is possible to predict collisions and the results of all those collisions; from there you can theoretically find what they all will do forever because they follow a set of laws. In this way you are using both math and physics.


----------



## Stefan (Mar 24, 2010)

You're still assuming a deterministic universe. But ok, for the sake of argument, I'll give you that. Now how do you know that it's not determined that we'll never predict the future that way, thereby making it impossible?


----------



## DaijoCube (Mar 24, 2010)

CubesOfTheWorld said:


> My opinion
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


There is no opinion in math.


LewisJ said:


> Escher said:
> 
> 
> > DaijoCube said:
> ...


I say that humans won't be there for infinity, thus Rubiks could not be solved, but there could be multiples earthquakes making it move to its solved position...



TioMario said:


> DaijoCube said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I might create a philosophical debate here. At a specific moment in time, if we could know the position, speed, acceleration, mass and nature of all particle in the Universe, it would be MATHEMATICALLY possible to calculate every single event in the past and future.
> ...


Physics are applied mathematics. What I mean is there is no randomness in the world. We might not be able to predict all, but all is predictable. All that happens, happened and will happen are a result of forces between masses. That is only true if there is no god and might be false if we do have a soul. If choice is not due to matter, then what I say is slightly false.


----------



## DaijoCube (Mar 24, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> You're still assuming a deterministic universe. But ok, for the sake of argument, I'll give you that. Now how do you know that it's not determined that we'll never predict the future that way, thereby making it impossible?


I thought about that, it made me doubt a lot. Matter can predict it's own behavior, which might **** this all up  But when you think of it, if we predict events, it was ''obligated'' to happen. Therefore, our ability to predict is included, because it's a direct consequence of the ''initial data''.

This idea haunts me. Seriously.


----------



## DaijoCube (Mar 24, 2010)

LewisJ said:


> TioMario said:
> 
> 
> > DaijoCube said:
> ...


I love when somebody gets it.


----------



## JBCM627 (Mar 24, 2010)

DaijoCube said:


> LewisJ said:
> 
> 
> > By knowing the elementary properties of every particle it is possible to predict collisions and the results of all those collisions; from there you can theoretically find what they all will do forever because they follow a set of laws. In this way you are using both math and physics.
> ...



Unfortunately, Escher's post stands here: Learn2quantum. "Knowing the elementary properties of every particle" is physically impossible.


----------



## TioMario (Mar 24, 2010)

Not really, math is just the tool for physics, but it's just that, you can't apply raw math anywhere.

And blah, please be more specific, tell me where my mistake was.


----------



## DaijoCube (Mar 24, 2010)

TioMario said:


> Not really, math is just the tool for physics, but it's just that, you can't apply raw math anywhere.
> 
> And blah, please be more specific, tell me where my mistake was.


You can't apply raw math? I do understand the ambiguity here though.
But, this is not the point, at all


----------



## Stefan (Mar 24, 2010)

DaijoCube said:


> There is no opinion in math.


Is zero a natural number?



DaijoCube said:


> there is no randomness in the world.


How do you know?



DaijoCube said:


> That is only true if there is no god and might be false if we do have a soul.


Uh... what?


----------



## TioMario (Mar 24, 2010)

DaijoCube said:


> TioMario said:
> 
> 
> > Not really, math is just the tool for physics, but it's just that, you can't apply raw math anywhere.
> ...


Nope, the point is that PI is an irrational number, it has no last number and this thread is over


----------



## mr. giggums (Mar 24, 2010)

Escher said:


> DaijoCube said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I might create a philosophical debate here. At a specific moment in time, if we could know the position, speed, acceleration, mass and nature of all particle in the Universe, it would be MATHEMATICALLY possible to calculate every single event in the past and future.
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle


----------



## Stefan (Mar 24, 2010)

TioMario said:


> Nope, the point is that PI is an irrational number, it has no last number and this thread is over



If that were how things worked, you wouldn't have posted in this thread. You honestly thought you were the first to say that? On page 8?


----------



## Neo63 (Mar 24, 2010)

TioMario said:


> And blah, please be more specific, tell me where my mistake was.



My question was whether you can represent numbers in an irrational base such as base pi and your answer was to show how logarithms work. It was irrelevant to the question.


----------



## DaijoCube (Mar 24, 2010)

mr. giggums said:


> Escher said:
> 
> 
> > DaijoCube said:
> ...


I said WE, humans, cannot know. If we could know, everything could be predictable.


----------



## DaijoCube (Mar 24, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> DaijoCube said:
> 
> 
> > There is no opinion in math.
> ...


1-You got me, as you always do 

2-When you drop a ball, it'll fall. If you take the exact same conditions, it'll fall the exact same way.

3-If there would be a god that is omnipotent, it could interfere with this closed system that is our Universe. If we had something in us that is no matter and that has consciousness, then choice would not be the consequence of chemical and physical interaction, thus making my statement false.


----------



## TioMario (Mar 24, 2010)

Neo63 said:


> TioMario said:
> 
> 
> > And blah, please be more specific, tell me where my mistake was.
> ...



You mean a base pi numbering system?
If that is the question, the answer is yes.


----------



## Neo63 (Mar 24, 2010)

TioMario said:


> Neo63 said:
> 
> 
> > TioMario said:
> ...



yes because Stefan was talking about pi in base pi. And okay thx for the answer.

EDIT: found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio_base so I guess it's possible.


----------



## Johannes91 (Mar 24, 2010)

qqwref said:


> we can't exactly represent the number unless it can be written as some integer divided by some power of 10.


1/2 = 0.5

"some power of 10" ---> "2^m*5^n"


----------



## iSpinz (Mar 24, 2010)

I love this forum.


----------



## qqwref (Mar 24, 2010)

Johannes91 said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > we can't exactly represent the number unless it can be written as some integer divided by some power of 10.
> ...



You can't write 1/2 as 5/10?



DaijoCube said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > DaijoCube said:
> ...


Er, prove it? How do you know it's falling "the exact same way" every time? Besides, even if this were true, just because there is no randomness in one experiment does not mean you can say there is no randomness in any experiment.


----------



## JBCM627 (Mar 24, 2010)

DaijoCube said:


> 2-When you drop a ball, it'll fall. If you take the exact same conditions, it'll fall the exact same way.


Ever heard of the double-slit experiment?



DaijoCube said:


> I said WE, humans, cannot know. If we could know, everything could be predictable.


Not even GOD can know.

Think of it this way. Given algorithms A and B, try [A, B] on a cube. In general, [A, B] != 0. You can't perform A and B simultaneously on a cube, or "measure" both of them.

Physical measurements work the same way. Given measurements (operators) A and B, trying to measure both A and B for a given particle will only be possible if [A, B] = 0. In general, this is not the case.

Saying it is possible to know both position and momentum of a particle is not that different from saying that performing RUR'U' on a solved cube will give you a solved cube. Neither God nor Frank Morris would be able to do this. Well, Frank might.


----------



## Daniel Wu (Mar 24, 2010)

iSpinz said:


> I love this forum.


I <3 it 2.


----------



## DaijoCube (Mar 24, 2010)

iSpinz said:


> I love this forum.



I do too 



qqwref said:


> Johannes91 said:
> 
> 
> > qqwref said:
> ...


I don't know if you did physics class, but particles do not decide whether or not they want to respect physics laws.


----------



## TioMario (Mar 24, 2010)

Neo63 said:


> TioMario said:
> 
> 
> > Neo63 said:
> ...



A base pi numbering system may be useful when working with spheres and circles. Our number 1 would be equal to about 0.3183... in base pi. Circles would be exactly 2 radians around. It seems possible.


----------



## qqwref (Mar 24, 2010)

DaijoCube said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > DaijoCube said:
> ...


I don't know if you've studied quantum physics at all, but the laws of physics do not specify that all outcomes happen with either 0% or 100% probability.



TioMario said:


> A base pi numbering system may be useful when working with spheres and circles. Our number 1 would be equal to about 0.3183... in base pi. Circles would be exactly 2 radians around. It seems possible.


This isn't how a base-pi numbering system would work, sorry. It is not as simple as multiplying every number by 1/pi.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Mar 24, 2010)

TioMario said:


> A base pi numbering system may be useful when working with spheres and circles. Our number 1 would be equal to about 0.3183... in base pi. Circles would be exactly 2 radians around. It seems possible.



And practical to some degree.


----------



## Johannes91 (Mar 24, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Johannes91 said:
> 
> 
> > qqwref said:
> ...


Osht, good point.

/me facepalms


----------



## DaijoCube (Mar 24, 2010)

qqwref said:


> DaijoCube said:
> 
> 
> > qqwref said:
> ...


I did little Quantum Physics. I'm not talking at all of probabilities, I'm talking of what will happen. I do understand what you mean, and it makes me doubt a lot. I would love, seriously, to be proven wrong. I'm only looking for that, so I can finally sleep


----------



## JBCM627 (Mar 24, 2010)

DaijoCube said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know if you've studied quantum physics at all, but the laws of physics do not specify that all outcomes happen with either 0% or 100% probability.
> ...





JBCM627 said:


> Ever heard of the double-slit experiment?


Shoot photons or electrons or identical cubes or anything you like one at a time through an appropriate double-slit. They won't all land on the same spot.


----------



## Stefan (Mar 24, 2010)

Neo63 said:


> My question was whether you can represent numbers in an irrational base such as base pi



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-integer_representation#Base_.CF.80


----------



## DaijoCube (Mar 24, 2010)

JBCM627 said:


> DaijoCube said:
> 
> 
> > qqwref said:
> ...



Yes, I did, often. As I said, I'd love to be proven wrong, but since we don't know all the basics in physics, we can't be sure we live in a determinist universe.

That being said, can't wait to see other posts on this thread, I love it. My body needs rest


----------



## Stefan (Mar 24, 2010)

DaijoCube said:


> we can't be sure we live in a determinist universe.


So why did you claim that we do?


----------



## DaijoCube (Mar 24, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> DaijoCube said:
> 
> 
> > we can't be sure we live in a determinist universe.
> ...



1- I enjoy debating.
2- Mostly everything leads to this conclusion.
3- It is not necessarily a sensible truth, but the same kind of truth when you ask yourself if you exist, and you KNOW you exist when you can't prove it at all.


----------



## Neo63 (Mar 24, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Neo63 said:
> 
> 
> > My question was whether you can represent numbers in an irrational base such as base pi
> ...



sweet 

And I'm sure I've heard about this thing that you can never be sure where an electron is. You can only narrow it down to an finite space in which it will be in. Sorry if I'm wrong, I'm very noob at physics.


----------



## LewisJ (Mar 24, 2010)

DaijoCube said:


> LewisJ said:
> 
> 
> > TioMario said:
> ...



I understand what you're saying just fine, but read my post arguing against it:

"anyway, daijo you're again making the comparison between finite and infinite. Once you've predicted the future forever and ever and ever, you have to search through that infinite future for the LAST occurrence of a cube being solved. Simply impossible to do - one of the key ideas behind the word infinite."

For reasons which have been spelled out in more recent posts, I still think your proposed possibility is not possible. Assuming every other effort against your idea fails, once you know everything that would ever happen ever, you have the problem of an infinite search space - you can't find the LAST time something finite happens in an infinite search space! But before you even get to that problem, you have all kinds of fundamental laws of various branches of physics standing glaringly in your way, not to mention the factor of time itself. Computing what every particle in the universe will do will take longer than it will take all of those particles to do what they'll do because computational capabilities are limited by........the number of particles in the universe!


----------



## LewisJ (Mar 24, 2010)

Neo63 said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > Neo63 said:
> ...



It's called the heisenberg(sp) uncertainty principle; the more you know about an electron's position, the less you know about its velocity (speed and direction), and vice versa, because in order to locate an electron, you must bounce something off it, and that will change its velocity.


----------



## Thomas09 (Mar 24, 2010)

iasimp1997 said:


> http://www.eveandersson.com/pi/digits/1000000
> It's actually one.


That reminds me of when I want to copy down an action replay code.


----------



## VP7 (Mar 24, 2010)

LewisJ said:


> It's called the heisenberg(sp) uncertainty principle; the more you know about an electron's position, the less you know about its velocity (speed and direction), and vice versa, because in order to locate an electron, you must bounce something off it, and that will change its velocity.



Use a Heisenberg compensator.


----------



## hyunchoi98 (Mar 24, 2010)

I think this is like saying

"Write all the digits of 1/3."

It doesn't make sense


----------



## rahulkadukar (Mar 24, 2010)

Hey Cyrus C. there is something known as Rational and something known as Irrational number. A rational number can be written as (p/q) and an irrational number cannot be written like that so basically an irrational number is a stream of numbers that you cannot say will ever end.


For example look at this series:

Gregory and Leibniz found
pi/4	=	
Sum from k=1 to k = infinity
((-1)^(k+1))/(2k-1)	

For the first 7 terms pi/4 is equal to

1 - (1/3) + (1/5) - (1/7) + (1/9) - (1/11) + (1/13).....

Now you can go to a billion terms and you will just get closer to the real value but there will never be an end


----------



## TheBB (Mar 24, 2010)

Oh wow, the fail is *really, really strong* in this thread.


----------



## ManasijV (Mar 24, 2010)

What were you even thinking?


----------



## Zane_C (Mar 24, 2010)

In my opinion I would think because it's irrational it would not have a zero at the end, because if it did wouldn't it be rational.


----------



## megaminxwin (Mar 24, 2010)

Look.

What you're thinking is that pi goes on forever (correct), but then you say that the last digit (incorrect) is 0 (incorrect also).

Basically, you think that pi ends 'at infinity', but that doesn't make sense. Infinity is arbitrary. It's only an idea, it doesn't really mean anything.

So technically, there IS no end for a zero to go on.

I rest my case.


----------



## blah (Mar 24, 2010)

Zane_C said:


> In my opinion I would think because it's irrational it would not have a zero at the end, because if it did wouldn't it be rational.


Pleas stop this whole BS about irrational numbers not ending with 0 and rational numbers ending with 0. Ending with 0 is NOT a necessary and sufficient condition for a number to be rational.

I'm going to say this a third (pun intended ) time: 1/3 is rational, but it doesn't "end with 0," whatever that means.

The only logical statement here is:
\( x \in \mathbb{R} \setminus \mathbb{Q} \Rightarrow x \) does not end with 0 (if x is irrational, then x does not end with 0)

...and its contrapositive:
\( x \) ends with 0 \( \Rightarrow x \in \mathbb{Q} \) (if x ends with 0, then it is rational)

The statement "\( x \in \mathbb{Q} \Rightarrow x \) ends with 0" is false.

Edit: Oops.


----------



## DaijoCube (Mar 24, 2010)

LewisJ said:


> Neo63 said:
> 
> 
> > StefanPochmann said:
> ...



You can't be sure of it's position, speed and direction, but it HAS a position, speed and direction. If we can't find it doesn't mean there is none or that it changes by its own or something.


----------



## Zane_C (Mar 24, 2010)

blah said:


> Zane_C said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion I would think because it's irrational it would not have a zero at the end, because if it did wouldn't it be rational.
> ...



Ok.


----------



## LewisJ (Mar 24, 2010)

VP7 said:


> LewisJ said:
> 
> 
> > It's called the heisenberg(sp) uncertainty principle; the more you know about an electron's position, the less you know about its velocity (speed and direction), and vice versa, because in order to locate an electron, you must bounce something off it, and that will change its velocity.
> ...


Wouldn't we love for those to be real 

@ the last 4 of you to hand out some form of the "no it isn't 0" argument - you're late, show's over, he already got convinced on the second page. The new argument is about the feasibility of simulating the whole universe and answering impossible questions via that simulation. 



DaijoCube said:


> LewisJ said:
> 
> 
> > Neo63 said:
> ...



I never said there is none, and I never said it changes randomly/on its own either. Obviously there is SOME absolute position and SOME exact velocity. The problem is - if we find the position to perfect accuracy, we know exactly NOTHING about the velocity, and thus, as soon as we've measured the position, it's somewhere else and we don't have a clue where! If we know a whole lot about its velocity and can rather accurately follow where it will go, we then no longer know its original location. 

Yes, it HAS a position and it HAS a velocity, but nothing can be done to accurately find both of those at the same time. This is just one of numerous problems in your argument, and you STILL haven't addressed my observation that EVEN if we broke numerous laws of physics and made various things possible just for the sake of your future-predicting simulation, once you had the infinite search space of the future, you'd never be able to find the LAST time someone solves a rubik's cube, just like you'd never be able to find the LAST occurrence of 3 in the decimal representation of 1/3. Your proposition is flawed in that way in a way that simply CAN'T be fixed by bending rules.


----------



## Karthik (Mar 24, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> The last digit of Pi would have to be 0 right...


There would have to be a hard-rock café at the end of the universe. Right?


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Mar 24, 2010)

why is this thread still going on?


----------



## Stefan (Mar 24, 2010)

LewisJ said:


> you'd never be able to find the LAST time someone solves a rubik's cube, just like you'd never be able to find the LAST occurrence of 3 in the decimal representation of 1/3.



Why are you asserting that there can't be a last rubik's cube solve? How do you know?


----------



## Owen (Mar 24, 2010)

*I* say It has no end.


----------



## scottishcuber (Mar 24, 2010)

For arguements sake, lets say that pi does not have infinite decimals and lets say that pi is 1.98 (just a random number).
1.98=1.980=1.9800
These numbers are all the same, if you see 1.9800000 you shouldnt say that it ends on a zero because you dont need a zero there, and in maths you dont put a zero at the end of any decimal. In that sense no decimal no matter how long it is would end in a zero. 
If Cyrus C. is right then every decimal would end in a zero because you can put zero at the end of every decimal...
pi is irrational anyway so it doesnt end


----------



## LewisJ (Mar 24, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> LewisJ said:
> 
> 
> > you'd never be able to find the LAST time someone solves a rubik's cube, just like you'd never be able to find the LAST occurrence of 3 in the decimal representation of 1/3.
> ...



Given the infinite time span of the universe (which nearly everything I've read in SOME way suggests), it seems obvious that there can't be a guaranteed LAST solve. I may well be missing something here - perhaps there will be an eventual constant, everlasting state of the universe, but I don't think or see evidence that such a state is possible. Feel free to expand on your argument though, you could easily be much more well-versed in theories/arguments regarding the "end" of the universe than I am.


----------



## DaijoCube (Mar 24, 2010)

LewisJ said:


> VP7 said:
> 
> 
> > LewisJ said:
> ...



As I said, it cannot be predicted by a human, but physically, it is true. We are both right.


----------



## macky (Mar 24, 2010)

it's 1; you express it in base pi.

[edit] ah damn it, I see someone already wrote this.


----------



## DavidWoner (Mar 24, 2010)

(1:47:54 PM) PatrickJameson: ok why is the pi thread still alive
(1:48:07 PM) PatrickJameson: are they trying to count the digits in pi via post number?

He makes a good point. This thread was dumb to begin with, it's just dumb people being dumb and smart people being frustrated.


----------



## shelley (Mar 24, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> dumb people being dumb and smart people being frustrated.



aka what happens in real life?


----------

