xkcd: Coordinate Precision but pi (π)?

I tried looking for some answer but found mostly

  • People reciting pi
  • People teaching how to memorize pi
  • How to calculate pi using different formula
  • How many digits NASA uses

Update question to be more specific

In case someone see this later, what is the most advanced object you can build or perform its task, with different length of pi?

0, 3 => you can’t make a full circle

1, 3.1 => very wobbly circle

2, 3.14 => perfect hole on a beach

3, 3.142 => ??

4, 3.1416 => ??

5, 3.14159 => ??

Old question below

In practice, the majority of people will never require any extra digit past 3.14. Some engineering may go to 3.1416. And unless you are doing space stuff 3.14159 is probably more than sufficient.

But at which point do a situation require extra digit?
From 3 to 3.1 to 3.14 and so on.

My non-existing rubber duck told me I can just plug these into a graphing calculator. facepalm

y=(2πx−(2·3.14x))

y=abs(2πx−(2·3.142x))

y=abs(2πx−(2·3.1416x))

y=(2πx−(2·3.14159x))

Got adequate answer from @dual_sport_dork and @howrar
Any extra example of big object and its minimum pi approximation still welcome.

  • user45178@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Then why did we need to put in so much effort to get to the 100 billionth or so? When all we could ever need are 40, maybe 50 if you want?

    • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It is not about actual use when they calculate pi to tthese numbers.

      It is about finding out if pi is actually irrational or is it recurring on some level.ie: does it start repeating at some point.

      • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        nope, just for testing computers. We know pi is transcendental. Which implies it is irrational. This has been mathematically proven.

        We don’t need to check. We know that it does not repeat.

        • Chobbes@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s facts about pi we don’t know, though. We have not proved whether or not pi contains every finite sequence of digits. A breakthrough about this will probably have little to do with brute force computing billions of digits of pi, but maybe there can be a clue there. As far as I know we basically just calculate a bunch of pi to flex. It’s the mathematical equivalent of walking around shirtless to show off your abs.

      • jasory@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Nope. Alexander Yee literally just wrote the program for shits and giggles. (Even the mathematical routines aren’t generally useful).

        Pi can be proven to be irrational with a pen and paper.

    • AlataOrange@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      In addition to what @Pons_Aelius replied, it is also used as a benchmark/flex for computers, as to who can build a beefy enough machine or good enough card to calculate more digits of pi.

      • jasory@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Nobody optimises their computer build by targeting pi computation. LAPACK benchmarks are far more useful, because linear algebra is actually extensively use; nobody calculates transcendental constants beyond IEE754 precision.

        Additionally that’s not how hardware is designed.