Lemmy.one
  • Communities
  • Create Post
  • heart
    Support Lemmy
  • search
    Search
  • Login
  • Sign Up
fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 2 年前

suck it, math nerds

mander.xyz

message-square
96
fedilink
723

suck it, math nerds

mander.xyz

fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 2 年前
message-square
96
fedilink
alert-triangle
You must log in or # to comment.
  • ns1@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    160
    ·
    2 年前

    More likely a mathematician would correct you instead of crying. Pi is not infinite, its decimal expansion is infinite!

    • zkfcfbzr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      85
      ·
      2 年前

      Plus even that isn’t enough: 10/3 has an infinite decimal expansion (in base 10 at least) too, but if π = 10/3, you’d be able to find exact circumferences. Its irrationality is what makes it relevant to this joke.

      A mathematician is also perfectly happy with answers like “4π” as exact.

      Plus what’s to stop you from having a rational circumference but irrational radius?

      Writing this, I feel like I might have accidentally proved your point.

      • danc4498@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        2 年前

        Mathematicians taking a physics class and being told they have to round things. That’s when the tears start flowing.

    • magic_lobster_party@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      2 年前

      Its decimal expansion is finite in the base pi.

      • Steve@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 年前

        1?

        • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          2 年前

          No 10. 1 is the same number in any base.

          • generaldenmark@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 年前

            In my experience, 1 is equivalent with 1’s in other base… this particularly applies for base-ball

    • chillhelm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      2 年前

      This is the correct answer. Pi is known. What it’s decimal expansion looks like is irrelevant. It’s 1 in base Pi.

      • cogman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 年前

        Yup, similar to the square root of two and Euler’s number.

        These are numbers defined by their properties and not their exact values. In fact, we have imaginary numbers that don’t have values and yet are still extremely useful because of their defined properties.

    • Carnelian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 年前

      The actual punchline here should have been “there is no known equation to calculate the exact perimeter of an ellipse”, then sucking tears from an astrophysicist

      • marcos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 年前

        Try it when you find some physicist that cares about exact values. Or when you see pigs flying over your head, both are about as likely.

        • Carnelian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 年前

          Perfectly spherical pigs?

          • Venia Silente@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 年前

            Would go well with my former teacher’s point-shaped cows.

        • Zerush@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 年前

          I see, you were never at a Pink Floyd concert

    • LanternEverywhere@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 年前

      Exactly, a fraction is completely as valid of a way to express a number as using a decimal.

      1/2 = 0.5

      They’re both fully valid ways to write the exact same quantity

    • maniclucky@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 年前

      This was my first thought and then I realized I had been nerd sniped.

  • bstix@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    111
    ·
    2 年前

    Easy. Take a wire that is exactly 1 meter long. Form a circle from the wire. The circumference of that circle is 1 meter.

    • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      2 年前

      “exactly”

      uh huh. and how are you measuring that?

      • lemmyman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        2 年前

        Now the engineers and/or scientists are crying

        • Incandemon@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 年前

          deleted by creator

      • HopFlop@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        2 年前

        You don’t need to, it’s defined. (Lol). If you take a circle with a circumference of 1, then its circumference will be 1… I think I might have lost some braincells reading this.

        • Kill_John_Lennon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 年前

          He obviously meant to say how do you measure that it’s exactly 1m, even when still in a straight line. Exactly being the key word here.

          • hesdeadjim@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 年前

            But is the circumference of the outer circle or inner circle 1m? The wire has a nonzero width.

      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        2 年前

        I don’t have to measure it. I stick under glass and define it as the standard which all other measurements are derived from.

      • bstix@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 年前

        I will be measuring it in meters. One. There you go.

        • MxM111@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 年前

          Ok, you got another source of water - physicists.

      • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 年前

        Plancks

        • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 年前

          Exactly. Use a laser measure to cut a plank, then use that for reference!

      • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 年前

        Laser Measure.

    • exocrinous@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      2 年前

      Removed by mod

      • bstix@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        2 年前

        And this why you don’t touch the thermostat.

    • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 年前

      deleted by creator

  • janAkali
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    ·
    2 年前

    Who said Pi is infinite? If we take Pi as base unit, it is exactly 1. No fraction, perfectly round.

    Now everything else requires an infinite precision.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 年前

      Eek, that makes my skin crawl. Taking what you said literally would imply that π² = π.

      • ansorca@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 年前

        pi equals 10

        • alexsup21@iusearchlinux.fyi
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 年前

          Engineers be like:

      • otp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 年前

        I’m pretty sure a base-Pi counting system would mean that Pi is π, not 1.

        You’d count π, 2π, 3π, 4π, and so on. It doesn’t change reality, just the way you count and represent numbers.

        I might be off, but it’s definitely not π = 1.

      • janAkali
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 年前

        You still think in 1-based system, Pi unit * Pi unit is Pi of Pi units or 3.14159… Pi units. Also, Pi unit / Pi unit is 1/Pi Pi units or 0.318309886183790… Pi units…

    • DrSteveBrule@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 年前

      I’m confused, how is pi used as a unit? My understanding is that it’s a number

      • nul9o9@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 年前

        6π is an acceptable answer for finding the circumference of a circle with a radius of 3 units of something.

      • janAkali
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 年前

        1 is also a number, a number we chose by convention to be a base unit for all numbers. You can break down every number down to this unit.

        20 is 20 1s. 1.5 is 1 and a half 1.

        If we have Pi as a unit, circumference of a circle would be radius*2 of Pi units. But everything that doesn’t involve Pi would be a fraction of Pi, e.g. a normal 1 is roughly 1/3 of Pi units, 314 is roughly 100 Pi units, etc. etc.

  • guywithoutaname@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    ·
    2 年前

    Not true. If you define the circumference in terms of pi, you can define the circumference exactly.

    • gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      2 年前

      “Find” not “define”

      • Gnome Kat@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        45
        ·
        2 年前

        Putting things in base 10 is also a definition. Digits aren’t special.

        • h3ndrik@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          edit-2
          2 年前

          Was going to say the same. Also π isn’t infinite. Far from it. it’s not even bigger than 4. It’s representation in the decimal system is just so that it can’t be written there with a finite number of decimal places. But you could just write “π”. It’s short, concise and exact.

          And by that definition 0.1 is also infinite… My computer can’t write that with a finite amount of digits in base 2, which it uses internally.

          So… I’m crying salty tears, too.

          [Edit: And we don’t even need transcendental numbers or other number systems. A third also doesn’t have a representation. So again following the logic… you can divide a cake into 5 pieces, but never into 3?!]

          • DrSteveBrule@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 年前

            Can pi be expressed with a finite amount of digits in another number system?

            • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              21
              ·
              2 年前

              How about a pi based system, then pi is 1.

              • Mr. Semi@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                15
                ·
                2 年前

                deleted by creator

                • h3ndrik@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  2 年前

                  You’re correct.

                  For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-integer_base_of_numeration

              • 33550336@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 年前

                Possible, but then the diameter would be an irrational number

            • Solemn@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              2 年前

              I don’t think there’s any technical reason we can’t count in base pi

              • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 年前

                I’m pretty happy with being able to write integers in a finite number of digits. Wouldn’t want to give that up.

              • mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 年前

                Well we need an integer base number system…

                • Solemn@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  2 年前

                  “A base is usually a whole number bigger than 1, although non-integer bases are also mathematically possible.”

                  https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_(mathematics)

          • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 年前

            Not sure where you’re going with the decimal thing. Pi had infinite digits in any integer base because it’s irrational.

            • h3ndrik@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 年前

              I thought that was the joke in the comic? That we can’t know numbers exactly that have an infinite decimal expansion. That’d be true for some rational numbers like a third, if you change the basis of the numeral system it’d be different numbers. And irrational numbers too if you have a integer base. But I’d argue how we write down a number isn’t what determines exactness or ‘infinity’ by the words of the comic.

        • Mr. Semi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 年前

          deleted by creator

      • HopFlop@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        2 年前

        That doesnt make a difference. You can find the exact circumference of a circle, you just cant express it in the decimal system as a number (thats why we have a symbol for it so you can still express the exact value)

  • Zerush@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    2 年前

    Also

    • slst@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      2 年前

      Pi = 4! = 4×3×2 = 24

    • nachtigall@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 年前

      Omfg why can’t I figure out why this does not work. Help me pls

      • RandomStickman@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        edit-2
        2 年前

        I think it’s because no matter how many corners you cut it’s still an approximation of the circumference area. There’s just an infinite amount of corners that sticks out

        • marcos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          2 年前

          There’s just an infinite amount of corners that sticks out

          Yes. And that means that it is not an approximation of the circumference.

          But it approximates the area of the circle.

          • RandomStickman@kbin.run
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 年前

            True, thanks for the correction

      • Zerush@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        2 年前

        It’s a fractal problem, even if you repeat the cutting until infinite, there are still a roughness with little triangles which you must add to Pi, there are no difference between image 4 and 5, the triangles are still there, smaller but more. But it’s a nice illusion.

      • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 年前

        Because you never make a circle. You just make a polygon with a perimeter of four and an infinite number of sides as the number of sides approaches infinity.

        • anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 年前

          But if you made a regular polygon, with the number of sides approaching infinity, it would work.

      • TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 年前

        https://youtu.be/VYQVlVoWoPY

        • mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 年前

          Exactly what I was expecting haha(I mean the video)

    • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 年前

      The lines in this are askew and it’s mildly annoying

      • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 年前

        They’re there to askew why the logic doesn’t work.

    • Dippy@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 年前

      Does this work with triangles too?

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 年前

      That approach works for area but not for perimeter, because cutting off the corners gives you a shape whose area is closer to the circle’s, but it doesn’t change the perimeter at all.

  • UndercoverUlrikHD 🇳🇴@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    2 年前

    Let’s say you got a circle with radius 1/π…

    • FiskFisk33@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 年前

      came here for this

  • Dippy@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    2 年前

    Nasa uses 15 digits of pi for solar system travel. And 42 digits is enough to calculate the entire universe to atomic accuracy

    • Malgas@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 年前

      And 65 digits is sufficient to calculate the circumference of the visible universe to within a Planck length.

      • Scribbd@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 年前

        We need MOAR precision!

      • dukk@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 年前

        I know enough digits of pi to calculate the circumference of the universe??

  • amio@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    2 年前

    Yeah, calling pi infinite makes me wanna cry, too.

    • Artyom@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 年前

      If only mathematicians had a number for that. Ya know, the people famous for making names for things on average once per published paper, most of them completely useless.

  • LordOfLocksley@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    2 年前

    Not if your diameter is d/pi. Then your circumference is d, where d > 0.

    Check mate atheists.

    • ladicius@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 年前

      Check mate matheists.

      Ftfy.

    • groet@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 年前

      Well now you can’t find the radius

      • LordOfLocksley@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 年前

        Radius = d/(2*pi)

        • groet@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 年前

          In the spirit of the meme this does not constitute “finding” the radius. There doesn’t exist a radius for which both the radius and the circumference are rational numbers.

  • UsernameIsTooLon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    2 年前

    Technically you can’t measure anything accurately because there’s an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 0. Whose to say it’s exactly 1? It could be off by an infinite amount of 0s and 1.

    Achilles and the Tortoise paradox.

  • ooterness@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    2 年前

    Joke’s on them, tears are too salty to provide hydration.

  • lowleveldata@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 年前

    The circumference of a circle with a diameter of 1 cm is exactly π cm. There you have it.

  • idiomaddict@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 年前

    m e a s u r e

    • KidnappedByKitties@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 年前

      Bah, the universe is too messy and disordered to be worth the trouble

  • JoYo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 年前

    Besides measuring it with a measuring tape.

  • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 年前

    Pi is 3.

    • Chadus_Maximus@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 年前

      Ah, the Euler identity. 3^i ^3 -1=0

      • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 年前

        Rofl :D Well, close enough, and about as sexy when a bit drunk.

Science Memes@mander.xyz

science_memes@mander.xyz

Subscribe from Remote Instance

Create a post
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !science_memes@mander.xyz

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Meta Post Tags

  • ANNOUNCEMENTS
  • RESOURCES


Rules

  1. Don’t throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


If you are here asking: “Is this a science meme?”

Probably, yes. We use the Dawkins definition of meme: a replicating idea, not just an image macro with a fact on it. A good post here doesn’t need to teach you something. It needs to make you ask something: who, what, where, when, and especially why or how.

Science isn’t a filing cabinet of facts, it’s a conversation. For example, a photo of an eel or other localized wildlife counts because most people never see one, and wonder is the first step of inquiry. A car meme counts if it makes you curious about what’s under the bonnet. If you want to talk about something you noticed in the world, chances are someone else wants to talk about it too.

We moderate for vibe, not category. Pruning is light, especially where a post creates interesting discussion. Experimenting is encouraged.

See the pinned paper on Shitposting as Public Pedagogy if you want the academic case for why this works.



Research Committee

  • !spiders@lemmy.world

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

  • !academia@mander.xyz
  • !science@mander.xyz
  • !scicomm@mander.xyz

Biology and Life Sciences

  • !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
  • !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
  • !anthropology@mander.xyz
  • !arachnology@mander.xyz
  • !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
  • !biodiversity@mander.xyz
  • !biology@mander.xyz
  • !biophysics@mander.xyz
  • !botany@mander.xyz
  • !ecology@mander.xyz
  • !entomology@mander.xyz
  • !fermentation@mander.xyz
  • !herpetology@mander.xyz
  • !houseplants@mander.xyz
  • !medicine@mander.xyz
  • !microscopy@mander.xyz
  • !mycology@mander.xyz
  • !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
  • !nutrition@mander.xyz
  • !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
  • !palaeontology@mander.xyz
  • !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
  • !plantid@mander.xyz
  • !plants@mander.xyz
  • !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz

Physical Sciences

  • !astronomy@mander.xyz
  • !chemistry@mander.xyz
  • !earthscience@mander.xyz
  • !geography@mander.xyz
  • !geospatial@mander.xyz
  • !nuclear@mander.xyz
  • !physics@mander.xyz
  • !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
  • !spectroscopy@mander.xyz

Humanities and Social Sciences

  • !archaeology@mander.xyz
  • !folklore@mander.xyz
  • !history@mander.xyz
  • !old_maps@mander.xyz

Practical and Applied Sciences

  • !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
  • !gardening@mander.xyz
  • !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
  • !soilscience@slrpnk.net
  • !terrariums@mander.xyz
  • !timelapse@mander.xyz

Memes

  • !bushrat_confidential@slrpnk.net
  • !science_memes@mander.xyz

Miscellaneous

  • !answered@mander.xyz
  • !mander@mander.xyz
Visibility: Public
globe

This community can be federated to other instances and be posted/commented in by their users.

  • 2.65K users / day
  • 4.31K users / week
  • 8.54K users / month
  • 18.9K users / 6 months
  • 98 local subscribers
  • 20.6K subscribers
  • 7.52K Posts
  • 206K Comments
  • Modlog
  • mods:
  • Salamander@mander.xyz
  • fossilesque@mander.xyz
  • SciBot@mander.xyz
  • fossilesque@lemmy.dbzer0.com
  • BE: 0.19.7
  • Modlog
  • Legal
  • Instances
  • Docs
  • Code
  • join-lemmy.org