Irrationality of $pi$ isn't confirmed?












-2












$begingroup$


I've heard that there is a bit of argument over whether you can confirm that $pi$ is truly irrational. We know $pi$ up to 2.7 trillion digits, but that accuracy isn't even that big, especially when you compare it to how accurately we know $e$. So, is there a possibility that the digits of $pi$ will repeat or end?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 5




    $begingroup$
    $pi$ is known to be irrational.
    $endgroup$
    – platty
    Dec 5 '18 at 23:28










  • $begingroup$
    I don't understand the downvotes. The premise of the question is wrong, but that goes straight to the purpose of the question. The OP doesn't know!
    $endgroup$
    – Matt Samuel
    Dec 6 '18 at 1:21






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @MattSamuel I guess it's related to the fact that a brief search on the internet would be sufficient for the OP to find out by himself.
    $endgroup$
    – rafa11111
    Dec 6 '18 at 11:50








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @rafa I bet the same search will also get you some wrong info.
    $endgroup$
    – Matt Samuel
    Dec 6 '18 at 12:13










  • $begingroup$
    By the way, $pi$ has been calculated far more accurate than $e$. Irrationality proofs are extremely difficult in general, for example it is unknown whether the Euler-Mascheroni-constant is rational.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter
    Dec 6 '18 at 14:12


















-2












$begingroup$


I've heard that there is a bit of argument over whether you can confirm that $pi$ is truly irrational. We know $pi$ up to 2.7 trillion digits, but that accuracy isn't even that big, especially when you compare it to how accurately we know $e$. So, is there a possibility that the digits of $pi$ will repeat or end?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 5




    $begingroup$
    $pi$ is known to be irrational.
    $endgroup$
    – platty
    Dec 5 '18 at 23:28










  • $begingroup$
    I don't understand the downvotes. The premise of the question is wrong, but that goes straight to the purpose of the question. The OP doesn't know!
    $endgroup$
    – Matt Samuel
    Dec 6 '18 at 1:21






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @MattSamuel I guess it's related to the fact that a brief search on the internet would be sufficient for the OP to find out by himself.
    $endgroup$
    – rafa11111
    Dec 6 '18 at 11:50








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @rafa I bet the same search will also get you some wrong info.
    $endgroup$
    – Matt Samuel
    Dec 6 '18 at 12:13










  • $begingroup$
    By the way, $pi$ has been calculated far more accurate than $e$. Irrationality proofs are extremely difficult in general, for example it is unknown whether the Euler-Mascheroni-constant is rational.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter
    Dec 6 '18 at 14:12
















-2












-2








-2





$begingroup$


I've heard that there is a bit of argument over whether you can confirm that $pi$ is truly irrational. We know $pi$ up to 2.7 trillion digits, but that accuracy isn't even that big, especially when you compare it to how accurately we know $e$. So, is there a possibility that the digits of $pi$ will repeat or end?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




I've heard that there is a bit of argument over whether you can confirm that $pi$ is truly irrational. We know $pi$ up to 2.7 trillion digits, but that accuracy isn't even that big, especially when you compare it to how accurately we know $e$. So, is there a possibility that the digits of $pi$ will repeat or end?







number-theory






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Dec 5 '18 at 23:27









Xavier StantonXavier Stanton

311211




311211








  • 5




    $begingroup$
    $pi$ is known to be irrational.
    $endgroup$
    – platty
    Dec 5 '18 at 23:28










  • $begingroup$
    I don't understand the downvotes. The premise of the question is wrong, but that goes straight to the purpose of the question. The OP doesn't know!
    $endgroup$
    – Matt Samuel
    Dec 6 '18 at 1:21






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @MattSamuel I guess it's related to the fact that a brief search on the internet would be sufficient for the OP to find out by himself.
    $endgroup$
    – rafa11111
    Dec 6 '18 at 11:50








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @rafa I bet the same search will also get you some wrong info.
    $endgroup$
    – Matt Samuel
    Dec 6 '18 at 12:13










  • $begingroup$
    By the way, $pi$ has been calculated far more accurate than $e$. Irrationality proofs are extremely difficult in general, for example it is unknown whether the Euler-Mascheroni-constant is rational.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter
    Dec 6 '18 at 14:12
















  • 5




    $begingroup$
    $pi$ is known to be irrational.
    $endgroup$
    – platty
    Dec 5 '18 at 23:28










  • $begingroup$
    I don't understand the downvotes. The premise of the question is wrong, but that goes straight to the purpose of the question. The OP doesn't know!
    $endgroup$
    – Matt Samuel
    Dec 6 '18 at 1:21






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @MattSamuel I guess it's related to the fact that a brief search on the internet would be sufficient for the OP to find out by himself.
    $endgroup$
    – rafa11111
    Dec 6 '18 at 11:50








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @rafa I bet the same search will also get you some wrong info.
    $endgroup$
    – Matt Samuel
    Dec 6 '18 at 12:13










  • $begingroup$
    By the way, $pi$ has been calculated far more accurate than $e$. Irrationality proofs are extremely difficult in general, for example it is unknown whether the Euler-Mascheroni-constant is rational.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter
    Dec 6 '18 at 14:12










5




5




$begingroup$
$pi$ is known to be irrational.
$endgroup$
– platty
Dec 5 '18 at 23:28




$begingroup$
$pi$ is known to be irrational.
$endgroup$
– platty
Dec 5 '18 at 23:28












$begingroup$
I don't understand the downvotes. The premise of the question is wrong, but that goes straight to the purpose of the question. The OP doesn't know!
$endgroup$
– Matt Samuel
Dec 6 '18 at 1:21




$begingroup$
I don't understand the downvotes. The premise of the question is wrong, but that goes straight to the purpose of the question. The OP doesn't know!
$endgroup$
– Matt Samuel
Dec 6 '18 at 1:21




2




2




$begingroup$
@MattSamuel I guess it's related to the fact that a brief search on the internet would be sufficient for the OP to find out by himself.
$endgroup$
– rafa11111
Dec 6 '18 at 11:50






$begingroup$
@MattSamuel I guess it's related to the fact that a brief search on the internet would be sufficient for the OP to find out by himself.
$endgroup$
– rafa11111
Dec 6 '18 at 11:50






1




1




$begingroup$
@rafa I bet the same search will also get you some wrong info.
$endgroup$
– Matt Samuel
Dec 6 '18 at 12:13




$begingroup$
@rafa I bet the same search will also get you some wrong info.
$endgroup$
– Matt Samuel
Dec 6 '18 at 12:13












$begingroup$
By the way, $pi$ has been calculated far more accurate than $e$. Irrationality proofs are extremely difficult in general, for example it is unknown whether the Euler-Mascheroni-constant is rational.
$endgroup$
– Peter
Dec 6 '18 at 14:12






$begingroup$
By the way, $pi$ has been calculated far more accurate than $e$. Irrationality proofs are extremely difficult in general, for example it is unknown whether the Euler-Mascheroni-constant is rational.
$endgroup$
– Peter
Dec 6 '18 at 14:12












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















10












$begingroup$

You can't prove irrationality by calculating digits and looking for a repeat because the repeat could start a little further out. $pi$ and $e$ are known to be transcendental, not just irrational. You may have heard that we don't know if $pi$ is normal, meaning any sequence of digits occurs with the correct limiting probability. That is correct, but most people who understand it would guess that it is.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3027821%2firrationality-of-pi-isnt-confirmed%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    10












    $begingroup$

    You can't prove irrationality by calculating digits and looking for a repeat because the repeat could start a little further out. $pi$ and $e$ are known to be transcendental, not just irrational. You may have heard that we don't know if $pi$ is normal, meaning any sequence of digits occurs with the correct limiting probability. That is correct, but most people who understand it would guess that it is.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      10












      $begingroup$

      You can't prove irrationality by calculating digits and looking for a repeat because the repeat could start a little further out. $pi$ and $e$ are known to be transcendental, not just irrational. You may have heard that we don't know if $pi$ is normal, meaning any sequence of digits occurs with the correct limiting probability. That is correct, but most people who understand it would guess that it is.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        10












        10








        10





        $begingroup$

        You can't prove irrationality by calculating digits and looking for a repeat because the repeat could start a little further out. $pi$ and $e$ are known to be transcendental, not just irrational. You may have heard that we don't know if $pi$ is normal, meaning any sequence of digits occurs with the correct limiting probability. That is correct, but most people who understand it would guess that it is.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        You can't prove irrationality by calculating digits and looking for a repeat because the repeat could start a little further out. $pi$ and $e$ are known to be transcendental, not just irrational. You may have heard that we don't know if $pi$ is normal, meaning any sequence of digits occurs with the correct limiting probability. That is correct, but most people who understand it would guess that it is.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Dec 5 '18 at 23:33









        Ross MillikanRoss Millikan

        292k23197371




        292k23197371






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3027821%2firrationality-of-pi-isnt-confirmed%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Berounka

            Sphinx de Gizeh

            Different font size/position of beamer's navigation symbols template's content depending on regular/plain...