Re: A89: Re: [OT] Pi

To: <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
Subject: Re: A89: Re: [OT] Pi
From: "Kaus" <kaus@cybrzn.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 18:06:06 -0500
References: <019701bfa4d3$94d7f960$5eeabed8@gn0sr>
Reply-To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org


well then, my good friend, give us this base 16 formula for finding the nth
digit of pi, and we will convert it to base 10 for you.  it _can_ be done,
if it can be done for base 16

--kaus

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Goodsell" <goodsell@bridgernet.com>
To: <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: A89: Re: [OT] Pi


>
> My understanding is that it had been believed to be impossible until this
> base 16 formula was discovered. Since then, there's no reason to believe
> that it's impossible in base 10, but nobody knows the formula in base 10
if
> it does exist.
>
> -Kevin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Seth Peelle <beat@drigon.com>
> To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
> Date: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 4:57 PM
> Subject: Re: A89: Re: [OT] Pi
>
>
> >
> >Kevin Goodsell wrote:
> >>
> >> There is no known formula for what you are requesting, at least not in
a
> >> base 10 numbers system (there is a hexadecimal digit extraction formula
> that
> >> was discovered in the early 90s).
> >
> >I'm kind of curious -- why would this be possible in base 16 but not
> >base 10, if pi doesn't "favor" one number system over any other
> >(AFAIK)?  Or is it that a formula does exist, but simply hasn't been
> >discovered yet?
> >
> >
> >BeaT (Seth Peelle)
> >beat@drigon.com
> >http://www.drigon.com/~beat
> >
>
>

References:

Re: A89: Re: [OT] Pi

From: "Kevin Goodsell" <goodsell@bridgernet.com>