Ramanujan's Approximation for Pi(9801*sqrt2/4412)

[powerdriller10]

The Bible says that Pi = 3. Creationists will have no problem fighting against a ridiculous 4,5% discrepancy, when they have a century fighting a 6000 against 15,000,000,000 years difference. Besides, Ramanujan was a pagan, somebody unacceptable for the young-earth Christians.

[HiddenDataFilms]

The largest discovery of pi is over 5 TRILLION digits long.

[RubenHogenhout]

This is just an approximation that gives pi in 6 decimals. 355/113 gives 7 and

(2143/22)^(1/4) gives 8 decimals. And there are many more.

But its incomplete because its just the first term of an serie.

An algorithmic is it as you make repeated calculations

that brings you closer and closer the pi. Thats what Ramanujan did

started with this first approximation number. So you just have to show the rest.

[SuperYOUAM]

238 769 4412

[contingocoins]

You have only computed the first term of this series, which as you say is accurate to six decimal places. This is an approximation, not an algorithm. To properly demonstrate Ramanujan's algorithmic insight you should continue the series, which converges on pi exponentially and is already accurate to hundreds of decimal places within relatively few steps.

[CurvesOfFractals]

@contingocoins well i guess your right. i basically is an approximation but an algorithm was what ramanujan stated in his works

[sciencoking]

This is bullshit, I could as well say Pi roughly equals 31415926535/10000000000 ...

[CurvesOfFractals]

@sciencoking OH MY GOD cant you not read the description/comments?? I have been saying that this approximation calculates only up to six decimals! 3.14159. The rest is all inaccurate. Please get that right!

[sciencoking]

I did. I just don't understand why someone would memorize this instead of 6 digits.

[HiddenDataFilms]

@sciencoking Pi is infinite my friend.

[sciencoking]

@HiddenDataFilms I know. I memorized 560 digits of it. When did I say it wasn't anyway?

[HiddenDataFilms]

@HiddenDataFilms You said "roughly" equals :)

[pintoguy]

A much more elegant approximation is simply 355/113, which gives 7 decimals

[CurvesOfFractals]

@pintoguy It might be elegant but it was not created by Ramanujan, which is who im showing

[MindLifeful]

Well this is wrong. The actual number up 56 decimal places is as follow: 3.1415926535897932384626433832­7950288419716939937510589097.

[CurvesOfFractals]

@MindLifeful Like the video says, this algorithm only calculates accurately six decimals. All the rest is rubbish. Plus the calculator used is very powerful so it calculated more than i wanted it to

[maddio14]

@MindLifeful

Your's is also wrong. Right:

3,1415926535897932384626433832­7950288419716939937510582097

[woldemort78]

it goes wrong on 73 part... :P

[CurvesOfFractals]

@woldemort78 like i said, the calculator i used is too powerful so it calculates the algorithm more than i want it too

[PureExile]

This isn't an algorithm; it is an approximation.

[CurvesOfFractals]

well...an algorithm in my terms is just a calculation but you do have a point. the calculator i recorded is a supercomputer calculator which calculated the expression with more digits than i intended to show

[xp0ferens]

how did he figure out you could do that?

[CurvesOfFractals]

you know thats a very good question.

I have no idea