mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Math Stuff > Analysis & Analytic Number Theory

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2016-01-01, 14:15   #1
stippix
 
Apr 2004

2×7 Posts
Default from i to π

To all math enthusiasts,

this posting describes an amazing method to calculate pi using tetration of imaginary unit i as "base-parameter" [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetration].
Probably this is already common knowledge in the mathematical community, anyhow I could not find concrete information about it.

Because mathematical symbols are used inside the formulas, please see attached picture for detailed information.

The numerical convergence of this method to calculate pi is rather slowly, in general "height-parameter" [see link above] divided by 20 results (approximately) in the number of correct digits.
This has been tested with algorithms for Mathematica and Maple for the concrete "height-parameter" values 200, 500 and 1000 resulting in 10, 25 and 50 correct digits of pi. Calculations were done with computation accuracy of 1000 digits.

By the way, calculating the expression (*) without absolute value signs, results in a complex number with real part converging zero and an imaginary part converging pi/2, so absolute value obviously converging pi/2 as stated in the formula.

(Please ignore the random number in last line.)

Happy new year 2016!
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	from_i_to_pi.png
Views:	177
Size:	37.0 KB
ID:	13646  
stippix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-01-01, 15:25   #2
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

8,369 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stippix View Post
To all math enthusiasts,

this posting describes an amazing method to calculate pi using tetration of imaginary unit i as "base-parameter" [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetration].
Probably this is already common knowledge in the mathematical community, anyhow I could not find concrete information about it.

Because mathematical symbols are used inside the formulas, please see attached picture for detailed information.

The numerical convergence of this method to calculate pi is rather slowly, in general "height-parameter" [see link above] divided by 20 results (approximately) in the number of correct digits.
This has been tested with algorithms for Mathematica and Maple for the concrete "height-parameter" values 200, 500 and 1000 resulting in 10, 25 and 50 correct digits of pi. Calculations were done with computation accuracy of 1000 digits.

By the way, calculating the expression (*) without absolute value signs, results in a complex number with real part converging zero and an imaginary part converging pi/2, so absolute value obviously converging pi/2 as stated in the formula.

(Please ignore the random number in last line.)

Happy new year 2016!
to try to recreate the image for people who don't care to click on it or who may not know about it already):

From i to \pi
using tetration of i ( with i^2=-1): n_i=i\uparrow\uparrow n =i^{i^{i^\ddots} (n times) there is strong numerical evidence of the following result:
\lim_{n\to\infty} \Bigg(\frac {| \frac{{n+1}_i-n_i}{n_i-{n-1}_i}|}{|n_i|}\Bigg ) = \frac {\pi}{2}=1.570796... (*) (to be calculated carefully because of numerical extinction)
denominator: \lim_{n\to\infty} (n_i) = 0.438282... + 0.360592... i and \lim_{n\to\infty} (|n_i|)=0.567555...
using Lambert's W-function and substitution -ln(i)=\frac{\pi}{2i} rewriting leads to [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/tetration and wolframalpha.com]:
\lim_{n\to\infty} (n_i) =\infty_i = \frac{W-ln(i)}{-ln(i)} =\frac{2i}{\pi} W(\frac{\pi}{2i})=0.438232.. +3.60592...i and \lim_{n\to\infty} (|n_i|)=|\infty_i|=\| \frac {W(-ln(i))}{-ln(i)}\|=\|\frac{2i}{\pi} W(\frac{\pi}{2i})\|=0.567555...

numerator: if (*) holds analytically re-arranging leads to:
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\Bigg (|\frac{{n+1}_i-{n_i}}{n_i-{n-1}_i}|\Bigg) = \frac {\pi}{2}|\infty_i|=\frac{\pi}{2}|\frac{W(-ln(i))}{-ln(i)}| = |\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{W(-ln(i))}{-ln(i)}|=|\frac{\pi}{2} \frac{2i}{\pi} W(\frac{\pi}{2i})| = i W(\frac{\pi}{2i}) = 0.891513...
Evaluating \frac{0.891513...}{0.567555...} obviously results in 1.570796... again.

(*) seems to be an amazing way to calculate \pi using tetration of i.

redoing this image has added new meaning to what the frac.

Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 2016-01-01 at 15:37
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-01-01, 15:57   #3
Nick
 
Nick's Avatar
 
Dec 2012
The Netherlands

2·52·29 Posts
Default

@stippix: I suggest you think first about what you mean by $i^i$. If your answer is $\exp(i \log(i))$ then you need to think about what you mean by $\log(i)$.
From your working, you are using the value $\log(i)=\frac{\pi}{2}i$, in which case you can get $\pi$ from $i$ simply by calculating $-2i \log(i)$.

We can link $i$ and $\pi$ simply with the equation $e^{i\pi}=-1$.

If you go on to learn algebraic topology, you will see that the complex numbers together with the exponential function form what is called a covering space for the non-zero complex numbers, and this is the best way of looking at the idea of logarithms on them.

Last fiddled with by Nick on 2016-01-01 at 16:01 Reason: Clarification
Nick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-01-10, 13:47   #4
stippix
 
Apr 2004

2·7 Posts
Default

Sorry for being offline ... family and holidays ;)

Of course one can use e^(iπ)=−1 to connect i and π, but you cannot calculate π this way numerically, because this does not give you an algorithm to do that.

By the way, I would always prefer to write e^(iπ)+1=0, connecting all five important mathematical values 0,1,π,e and i. This is indeed my favourite mathematical formula ...

i^i for example results in an real numerical value, i^i^i indeed is a complex number and all higher tetration values also. For more details please have a look into the attached pictures.

For me the most relavant result is, that the absolute values of the formulas seem to converge against π/2 as I already mentioned in my starting post. And btw. these tetrations for i look very nice and why shouldn't mathematics be esthetical ...

Greetings.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	from_i_to_pi_add1.png
Views:	106
Size:	13.4 KB
ID:	13696   Click image for larger version

Name:	from_i_to_pi_add2.png
Views:	118
Size:	13.0 KB
ID:	13697  
stippix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-01-10, 16:28   #5
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"𒉺𒌌𒇷𒆷𒀭"
May 2003
Down not across

278116 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stippix View Post
Of course one can use e^(iπ)=−1 to connect i and π, but you cannot calculate π this way numerically, because this does not give you an algorithm to do that.
Are you sure of that claim?

Remember that e^(ix) = cos(x) + i sin(x) --- which is Euler's formula.
Then expand e^y as a power series 1 + y +(y^2)/2 + .... +(y^n)/n! + ...
Now take the real part of that sum. All the odd powers of y are purely imaginary, so cos(x) = 1 + (x^2)/2! + ... (x^2n)/(2n!) + ...

So we can conclude that -1 = cos(π). Now use series inversion to calculate π

The same reasoning could be use for the imaginary part and sin(x).

Last fiddled with by xilman on 2016-01-10 at 16:30 Reason: Fix typo and add final sentence
xilman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-01-10, 20:29   #6
henryzz
Just call me Henry
 
henryzz's Avatar
 
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

10110011001002 Posts
Default

I saw an interesting way to calculate pi recently.
Our program calculated random values(uniformly distributed) for x and y between 0 and 1. We calculated whether \sqrt{x^2+y^2} was less than 1. This should be true 100*\pi/4% of the time as we are looking at a quarter circle.
This is a rather slow method compared to many out there but it works.
You do rely on your random number generator having absolutely no bias etc.
henryzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-01-11, 07:43   #7
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Thailand

8,837 Posts
Default

Why do you need random numbers? You can just take all grid points and count them, and you make the grid as fine/accurate as you want, and you look how many points are in the circle. "for i=1 to 100; for j=1 to 100...", this also has a known number of steps, and you know when it is finished and the accuracy you will get, and the method guarantees that the points are uniform distributed, and you can make it "fractal", i.e. start with a single point in the middle, which splits the square in 4 parts, add a point in the middle of each, repeat till you have the desired accuracy for the grid/pi you want. You can also exit every time when sqrt>1, and you know how many points you have left, therefore you don't need to compute sqrt's for the full lines (only black dots in the image), which would be even faster.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	pie.PNG
Views:	108
Size:	79.6 KB
ID:	13699  

Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2016-01-11 at 07:48 Reason: image
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-01-12, 08:45   #8
henryzz
Just call me Henry
 
henryzz's Avatar
 
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

22×1,433 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurV View Post
Why do you need random numbers? You can just take all grid points and count them, and you make the grid as fine/accurate as you want, and you look how many points are in the circle. "for i=1 to 100; for j=1 to 100...", this also has a known number of steps, and you know when it is finished and the accuracy you will get, and the method guarantees that the points are uniform distributed, and you can make it "fractal", i.e. start with a single point in the middle, which splits the square in 4 parts, add a point in the middle of each, repeat till you have the desired accuracy for the grid/pi you want. You can also exit every time when sqrt>1, and you know how many points you have left, therefore you don't need to compute sqrt's for the full lines (only black dots in the image), which would be even faster.
True.
The point at the time was an example of simulation.
henryzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-01-13, 01:44   #9
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Thailand

8,837 Posts
Default

It just occurred to me that you can use Hilbert's curve to count those points, and with few copy-pastes into a pari/gp window I could get something like: (the parameter x is the number of points on a side, so there are x^2 points):

Code:
gp > picnt(10)
%27 = 2.760000000000000000000000000
gp > picnt(100)
time = 3 ms.
%28 = 3.101600000000000000000000000
gp > picnt(200)
time = 10 ms.
%29 = 3.120700000000000000000000000
gp > picnt(300)
time = 25 ms.
%30 = 3.127733333333333333333333333
gp > picnt(500)
time = 66 ms.
%31 = 3.133392000000000000000000000
gp > picnt(1000)
time = 290 ms.
%32 = 3.137548000000000000000000000
gp > picnt(3000)
time = 2,673 ms.
%33 = 3.140244000000000000000000000
gp > picnt(5000)
time = 7,408 ms.
%34 = 3.140787040000000000000000000
gp > picnt(5000)  /**/
time = 7,395 ms.
%35 = 3.140787360000000000000000000
gp > picnt(10000)
time = 30,715 ms.
%36 = 3.141190600000000000000000000
gp > picnt(20000)
time = 2min, 12,572 ms.
%37 = 3.141392160000000000000000000
gp >
Not very fast, and not so accurate either... You may need a million points on a side (which is 10^12 points totally) to get reasonable accuracy and it will take a lot of time... But it is a method...

---------
** there are two of 5000 because somewhere in the middle I considered that the two points which are on the circle at (0, max) and (max, 0) should also be included and I changed to return 4*(cnt+2)/(n^2) instead of 4*cnt/(n^2), which seems to improve accuracy. The times differ a bit because the computer was doing other things in the same time. This is single core in a not-very-fast laptop.

Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2016-01-13 at 01:53
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-09-06, 14:41   #10
bhelmes
 
bhelmes's Avatar
 
Mar 2016

52·11 Posts
Default

A peaceful day for all,

there was a short note about pythagoraic tripples and pi at

http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted...tml#section9.6

2*pi ~ (2^n / amount of primitiv pyth. triples with c=u^2+v^2 < 2^n )

i verified the observation up to n=2^35

2^n = 5. anzahl = 4 ~pi = 4.00000020
2^n = 6. anzahl = 11 ~pi = 2.90909120
2^n = 7. anzahl = 18 ~pi = 3.55555620
2^n = 8. anzahl = 38 ~pi = 3.36842120
2^n = 9. anzahl = 81 ~pi = 3.16049420
2^n = 10. anzahl = 163 ~pi = 3.14110420
2^n = 11. anzahl = 323 ~pi = 3.17027920
2^n = 12. anzahl = 653 ~pi = 3.13629420
2^n = 13. anzahl = 1310 ~pi = 3.12671820
2^n = 14. anzahl = 2607 ~pi = 3.14230920
2^n = 15. anzahl = 5211 ~pi = 3.14411820
2^n = 16. anzahl = 10426 ~pi = 3.14291220
2^n = 17. anzahl = 20863 ~pi = 3.14125520
2^n = 18. anzahl = 41728 ~pi = 3.14110420
2^n = 19. anzahl = 83429 ~pi = 3.14212120
2^n = 20. anzahl = 166871 ~pi = 3.14187620
2^n = 21. anzahl = 333787 ~pi = 3.14145320
2^n = 22. anzahl = 667584 ~pi = 3.14140520
2^n = 23. anzahl = 1335065 ~pi = 3.14164820
2^n = 24. anzahl = 2670147 ~pi = 3.14162820
2^n = 25. anzahl = 5340303 ~pi = 3.14162320
2^n = 26. anzahl = 10680690 ~pi = 3.14159820
2^n = 27. anzahl = 21361461 ~pi = 3.14158620
2^n = 28. anzahl = 42722757 ~pi = 3.14159820
2^n = 29. anzahl = 85445541 ~pi = 3.14159720
2^n = 30. anzahl = 170891241 ~pi = 3.14159420
2^n = 31. anzahl = 341782682 ~pi = 3.14159220
2^n = 32. anzahl = 683565237 ~pi = 3.14159320
2^n = 33. anzahl = 1367130421 ~pi = 3.14159320
2^n = 34. anzahl = 2734261194 ~pi = 3.14159320
2^n = 35. anzahl = 5468521887 ~pi = 3.14159320

Has anybody a good mathematical explication for that ?

Greetings from the primes
Bernhard
bhelmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-09-06, 15:56   #11
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

2·2,963 Posts
Default

It sounds like you're guessing that the density of numbers \(c=x^2+y^2\) with \(\gcd(x,y)=1\) (A008784) is \(1/(2\pi)\) and you're asking why this is.

But I can't replicate your findings. Up to 2^5, for example, I get {1, 2, 5, 10, 13, 17, 25, 26, 29} with 9 members, not 4. What am I missing?

Edit: In fact, the density of A008784 seems to be \(3/4\pi\), or 3/2 times what you found. For example, up to 2^50 I find 268788803404122 terms, giving a density of 0.238732414640... compared to \(3/4\pi\) = 0.238732414637....

Last fiddled with by CRGreathouse on 2016-09-06 at 16:44
CRGreathouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


All times are UTC. The time now is 22:53.

Wed Oct 21 22:53:11 UTC 2020 up 41 days, 20:04, 1 user, load averages: 1.19, 1.49, 1.62

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.