Wednesday, January 15, 2014

I feel I may have found a faster solution to Pi

Updated with corrections. As re-posted from M-Phi (Mathematical Philosophy Blog, run by mathematical philosophers):

It turns out if I take (((10e) (pi - 1) *X) / 2) this produces some differences in sequence near the decimal point, but if I then * (e / pi) the result is an interesting number:


As it turns out, the first two digits are 5 * 5, which I call an irrational factorization of 1 * 10. The second two digits are equal to 2 * 9, the fifth and sixth digits are a straight irrational factorization, the seventh and eight digits are 4 * 7, skipping one level of irrational factorization. The ninth and tenth digits are 4 and 7, as if the series represents a factorization in process, in other words, a simplified version of the earlier irrational factorization process. My expectation is that the numbers that follow are always a simplified form of the same process that has occurred for these earlier numbers. Maybe that is simplistic, but finding this kind of set with factors of pi is unusual.

Earlier I was more excited, because I had mistakenly thought that 32 was 3 * 8. However, the explanation that 32 skips one level of factorization may be rationalizable through some other way.

It would be interesting to get feedback on whether I have found a way to generally exploit the decimal system or predict decimals of pi, since at no point did I divide e out of the system, and I suspect pi is still present as a factor of some kind.

---Nathan Larkin Coppedge, January 15th, 2014.

No comments: