Math geek clock

[[BTF]EyEsTrAiN]

 

[reaper]

KISS

 

[QwazyWabbit]

Replacing 3 (pi-0.14) for 9 is unacceptably inexact.

Pi is transcendental and no number except pi itself, can be subtracted from pi to yield a whole number.

3(pi - .14) is approximately 9.0047779607693797153879301498385 and is significantly different from the integer 9.

As a geek clock, this device is severely deficient.

 

[reaper]

pi-3=Δx
3(pi-Δx)

You would need a legend or something, so I don't think that really works.

[math]

Pi is transcendental and no number except pi itself, can be subtracted from pi to yield a whole number.

The transcendence has nothing to do with that.
Let n in Z := {...-2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ...}. pi - (pi - n) = n
 


A math geek would rather write 3[pi]
r in IR, [r] := max{a in Z: a <= r} (Gaussian bracket)

[jägermonsta]

 

[QwazyWabbit]

Pi is transcendental and no number except pi itself, can be subtracted from pi to yield a whole number.

The transcendence has nothing to do with that.
Let n in Z := {...-2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ...}. pi - (pi - n) = n
 

It has everything to do with it.

Associative law reveals:

pi - (pi - n) = (pi - pi) - n =  0 - n and is not equal to n except when n = 0 so your equation is flawed.

But you have effectively subtracted pi from itself. My assertion is correct.
 
However, the the flaw of my original statement is one of not being more formal with regard to precision and significant figures.

9, the integer is exact. pi, the symbol is exact. C = pi * D is exact.
3.14159265358 as an approximation of pi is precise but inexact. C = 3.14159265358 * D is precise but inexact.

Subtracting 0.14 from pi to approximate 3 is inexact and imprecise in comparison with 9, the integer.

Doing something like 3^2 (1 + pi - pi) would have been exact but mostly useless obfuscation but of course, the whole clock is useless obfuscation. I was merely pointing out the nature of the lack of mathematical rigor in the equation for 9 o'clock.

[math]

Pi is transcendental and no number except pi itself, can be subtracted from pi to yield a whole number.

The transcendence has nothing to do with that.
Let n in Z := {...-2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ...}. pi - (pi - n) = n
 

It has everything to do with it.

Associative law reveals:

pi - (pi - n) = (pi - pi) - n =  0 - n and is not equal to n except when n = 0 so your equation is flawed.

But you have effectively subtracted pi from itself. My assertion is correct.
 
However, the the flaw of my original statement is one of not being more formal with regard to precision and significant figures.

9, the integer is exact. pi, the symbol is exact. C = pi * D is exact.
3.14159265358 as an approximation of pi is precise but inexact. C = 3.14159265358 * D is precise but inexact.

Subtracting 0.14 from pi to approximate 3 is inexact and imprecise in comparison with 9, the integer.

Doing something like 3^2 (1 + pi - pi) would have been exact but mostly useless obfuscation but of course, the whole clock is useless obfuscation. I was merely pointing out the nature of the lack of mathematical rigor in the equation for 9 o'clock.

No, substraction isn't associative. pi - (pi - n) = pi - pi + n = 0 + n = n

Best regards,
Math

[[BTF]EyEsTrAiN]

And here I thought it was just a cool looking clock.

I stand corrected...as does the clock!

 

[QwazyWabbit]

Toward a more accurate timepiece.

 

[myamagical]

Math geeks.
I deal with them on a daily basis