Traiteur Rabat Regal au Maroc

]]>Professors of the world

Sir,

Till now we have been accepting Exhaustion method of Archimedes as perfect and error – free in computing pi is less than 22/7. Hence pi is 3.14159265358.. But it is proved his method is wrong .

I would think this news would be discussed in the departmental seminar .

Regards

author

———- Forwarded message ———-

From: Mathematician Vitthal Jadhav

Date: Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 9:31 PM

Subject: Re: 117 Method on Cosmic Pi

To: Sarva Jagannadha Reddy

Cc: bikasbikashchakraborty.math@yahoo.com

Mistakes in the #Archimedes #pi value computed by using Method of exhaustion.

(Issues with Traditional Pi (#π) )

—————————————————————————-

Assume circle, now draw the square inscribed in given circle,

the perimeter of square is clearly less than circumference,

Now if we increase side, draw regular hexagon with the given circle then difference between perimeter of hexagon & circumference will be reduced. Archimedes by using basic instrument like compass bisected each side of hexagon & obtained 12 point equally spaced on curved path of circle, join them & constructed regular dodecagon, in this way he continued this process. He calculated perimeter of regular polygon with 96 side & came to conclusion that the value of pi lies between

3 + 10/71 < π < 3 + 10/70,

i.e. 3.140845 < π infinity)

then delta tends to 0,

Now perimeter = n * (side of polygon i.e. AB)

Circumference = n * (Arc AB)

Error = n * ((Arc AB ) – (Side AB))

= n * delta

we clearly see, as n -> infinity , delta -> zero

but error doesn’t tend to zero as

it is “n * delta” becomes indeterminate

Archimedes method assumes error become insignificant.

This gives the reason – why cosmic pi = 3.146 given by Indian Professor R S Reddy (Sarva Jagannadha Reddy – We can call him as “PI Man” ) differ from traditional π = 3.1459 approximately by 0.004

]]>Very interesting article (as always). What we can “know” using AI on the open source and available commercial data is astounding and not well understood by most of the community as we cling to historical LSIs and methods. Hopefully we will recognize the value of using research efforts like OpenAI to develop both better understanding and to be aware of the pitfalls of considering AGI the golden solution for the future. ]]>

Remember our discussion a year ago when I was describing a commercially available AI capability that would identify Snowden before they acted, mass shooters, etc?

Exact same premise but not someone using maliciously… though if acquired by an adversary… could well be used that way…

]]>