Click to expand

Delicious Pi

  • Recommend tagsx
Views: 13792
Favorited: 43
Submitted: 08/08/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to mudkipfucker Subscribe to interestingjunk submit to reddit
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#4 - mostlyjunk (08/08/2013) [-]
More ******** below

Each pixel in your screen has the possibility of being red, blue, green or off. Your screen is made up of a finite number of pixels, however many they might be.
Therefore, there are a finite number of images that your screen can display.
However, the number of combinations is incomprehensibly large. Because of the good resolution of modernscreens, literally any image you can imagine is one of those combinations and theoretically, if you went through each possible combination ( pixel 1 red, pixel 2 off... etc.) you would eventually run through every imaginable image.
Pictures of you at the Grand canyon with your family, and with literally every combination of every person who has ever and ever will exist, and even people who don't.
Pictures that, when sequenced, are the frames to a video of Emma Watson beating the ever living **** out of a bear on live television. Pictures that show the future, pictures of people from past living in today's society, and each of these pictures from every possible angle and throug good cameras, bad cameras, cameras with rain on the lens, etc. I guess it seems lik a paradox since the possibilities seem as infinite as our imaginations, yet there are only a finite number of combinations your screen can provide.
#33 to #4 - bobbysilk (08/09/2013) [-]
I've thought about this way to many times but I've never had a way of wording it right.   
Don't know if you wrote that or not but I'm saving it for another time.
I've thought about this way to many times but I've never had a way of wording it right.
Don't know if you wrote that or not but I'm saving it for another time.
#44 to #4 - radamski (08/09/2013) [-]
I have no suitable reaction.
I have no suitable reaction.
User avatar #31 to #4 - fredthedead ONLINE (08/09/2013) [-]
Are you dumb?
#12 to #4 - honkan (08/08/2013) [-]
This. This ******* blows my mind just thinking about. The finite combinations of pixels creating an infinite number of pictures.
#30 - exxcezz (08/09/2013) [-]
Turning decimals into letters:


Think you get the idea, if anyone was wondering.

What you can find in PI:
Your social security number

Everything is there somewhere.

Chances of finding what you are looking for in the first 100 million decimals.

1-5 decimals = 100%
6 = 99.999995%
7 = 99.995%
8 = 63%
9 = 9.5%
10 = 0.995%
11 = 0.09995%
User avatar #37 to #30 - neocortex (08/09/2013) [-]
But why would you start with 0 as Z though...sorry, just curious ^_^
#41 to #37 - exxcezz (08/09/2013) [-]
I actually don't know why this is.
I wondered the same thing. However I just accept things as they are.

I would think it is because A is treated as the first letter in the alphabet. Therefore it get's the first number. Meaning 1, not 0.

That is the best I can do.
User avatar #42 to #41 - neocortex (08/09/2013) [-]
Makes sense, thx man
User avatar #14 - schodingerscat (08/08/2013) [-]
but does it know why kids love the taste of cinnimin toast crunch
User avatar #16 to #14 - sepheroth (08/09/2013) [-]
Yes. And it states it's the crushed up bits of crystal meth. Same thing that gives it that sparkle.
User avatar #7 - akho (08/08/2013) [-]
My common sense wants to say that there is only one infinity and therefore if we want number 2 to infinity we couldn't have number 3 to infinity, thus, this fact seems to be wrong.
#8 to #7 - John Cena (08/08/2013) [-]
You don't understand math then. It isn't a question of "common sense." Infinity isn't a number. There is not "only one infinity." You can't do arithmetic with infinity. If you did, infinity plus infinity is sill infinity. You see how "common sense" starts to break down.
It's a concept in math that you need to think about for a long time before it begins to kinda make sense.
#9 to #8 - deansmachine (08/08/2013) [-]
I believe there are infinite infinities, with some being bigger than others. There is an infinite number of distinct values between 1 and 2. However, there are even more distinct values between 1 and 3. Both are Infinite, but one is still a larger infinity.
#17 to #9 - paradoxpoetic (08/09/2013) [-]
There is no "larger" infinity. Infinity cannot have a size because it does not have an end. To say that one "infinity" is larger than another "infinity" is ridiculous, because by comparing them you're putting a limit on them, and it is no longer infinity. Infinity isn't a number, it's a concept. Never ending. It's a place holder, as is zero. We have no way to represent zero so some ancient tribe was like, " **** let's represent nothingness" and that's zero.

But I digress. You can't quantify infinity, therefore there is no "larger" or "smaller" infinity.
#19 to #17 - deansmachine (08/09/2013) [-]
But there is more value between 1 and 3 than there is between 1 and 2. So then while there is an infinite number of distinct values between 1 and 2, and an equally large amount of distinct values between 2 and 3, there would be still a greater number of distinct values between 1 and 3. Somewhat of another infinity. Mathematically, if x=infinity and you took the x between 1 and 2 and added it to the infinity between 2 and 3 you get the equation:

x+x= 2x

And it can be mathematically proven that: x < 2x. However, the 2x (the space between 1 and 3) is a singular entity of infinite values. Thus, a mathematically and conceptually LARGER infinity.
#23 to #19 - danruaul (08/09/2013) [-]
I see where you're going with the different distance between 1 and 2, and 2 and 3. But the infinities of irrational numbers between each are the same. They are represented as having the same "cardinality." There is a name for the cardinality they share: it's called aleph - one, written in the hebrew script with a subscript "1". In short, these infinities are "uncountable" and their size is not related by the space they come from on the numberline (but it would if we were talking about natural numbers, or rational numbers, or something like that which is countable). That can determine their domain only. Sorry to throw all this at you! But you sounded interested.
#24 to #23 - deansmachine (08/09/2013) [-] This is the concept I'm getting at. Due to scientific and mad mathematical reasoning, though all infinities are infinite, they still have a degree of magnitude to their infinity.
#25 to #24 - danruaul (08/09/2013) [-]
Okay. Cool video. He's talking about something similar to what I described.
At 30 seconds, he's discussing countable numbers. These are things like natural numbers, fractions, or integers.
At 50 seconds he comparing countable integers to real numbers. Real numbers are not countable.
We can compare their domain, which can be larger or smaller, but their cardinality between any to numbers - 1 and 2, or between 1 and 1,000 - is still the same.
At 60 seconds he's using a well-known argument, which Cantor invented. By this same argument, Cantor introduced the world to "an infinity of infinities." This is what is meant by "some infinities truly are bigger than other infinities." It's a comparison between the countable and the uncountable.
Feel free to disagree with me, and I know the wikipedia article is hard to follow - almost as hard as this guys racing jabber!
#26 to #25 - deansmachine (08/09/2013) [-]
I understand the way you explain it and you're right talking about the values and such between natural numbers and real numbers. I think we are just on two different pages here. WIth what definition we are trying to approach. And frankly, I don't care THAT much. However, It's been nice chatting. I like hearing a well thought-out discussion over the internet.
User avatar #38 to #26 - kugis (08/09/2013) [-]
Two reasonable people discussing something that is worth a discussion while respecting each others opinion. You don't see that every day.
#1 - John Cena (08/08/2013) [-]
That is actually not true. It has not been proven that pi contains every number although it certainly looks that way.
As a counter example:
1.01001100011100001111... is an infinite, nonrepeating decimal, but the numbers 2-9 never occurs.
#20 to #1 - John Cena (08/09/2013) [-]
So, you're saying it could be true, but isn't proven.

Why, then, would you say, it's not true.

It could be.
User avatar #3 - mechanichore (08/08/2013) [-]
How is my name in it if it is just numbers?
User avatar #13 to #3 - chocolateduck (08/08/2013) [-]
well say your name is john, "j" is the 10th letter in the alphabet, "o" the 15th, "h" the 8th and "n" the 14th, so 1015814 would be your name
#15 - adamks ONLINE (08/09/2013) [-]
So yeah. This is still wrong, like it was last time it was posted.
#18 to #15 - fuckyouto (08/09/2013) [-]
Nothing is wrong in INFINITY!
#22 to #15 - danruaul (08/09/2013) [-]
Could you explain why it's wrong? I seem to remember someone using the digits of pi to obtain random numbers, and if that's a good idea, then virtually each digit is equally probable in each place, and by the rule of large number, any given combination becomes increasingly probably if we are given a greater string of digits, in which case the probability of finding anything we want to increases to 1 as the string of digits approaches infinity. Do you see something wrong with this reasoning?
#28 to #22 - John Cena (08/09/2013) [-]
Its almost impossible to disprove probabilities that approach one as some factor approaches infinity, because of the murky nature of infinity. But insead I'll give you an example of what you might not be able to find any number you want in an infinite sequence of numbers. Imagine you had a number that followed the patern 1.2345678 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 (space for clarity).

The number follows a pattern, but it is non repeating, and does not contain the number 9. Even in this infinetly large decimal, I can't find the number 69.

TL;DR Infinetly large non repeating numbers don't have to contain every number.
#34 to #28 - John Cena (08/09/2013) [-]
But see that infinite repeating decimals pi is non repeating
#45 to #22 - adamks ONLINE (08/09/2013) [-]
It is pretty simple. The fact that it is infinite, means that it is neverending, not that it fulfills every possible solution. Saying that, is like saying that there is a number called everything. We have an infinite amount of numbers, but that doesn't mean that we have one called "kkkkkkk".
#43 - Bruceman (08/09/2013) [-]
Here's another version if anyone's interested You're probably not though
User avatar #40 - djequalizee (08/09/2013) [-]
I don't mean to be that guy but infinite numbers =/= infinite sets
#36 - John Cena (08/09/2013) [-]
*belch. whatever man.
#35 - thepastryistrue has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #32 - strangemoo (08/09/2013) [-]
I've been thinking about infinity lately and it's just weird. Cause existence is just as infinite as the universe.
User avatar #29 - flowrats (08/09/2013) [-]
Also the square root of 2...
#27 - John Cena (08/09/2013) [-]
The thing is though, that it also holds every wrong answer, all the ways you won't die, and it will still invariably tell you that it is the truth. Every possibility is in there, so in a way, you might say its a god.
User avatar #10 - racheecat (08/08/2013) [-]
I thought it wasn't infinite, and scientists were figuring out if it is infinite or not. Well, it's just a guess.
#21 to #10 - danruaul (08/09/2013) [-]
There's a proof that it doesn't end and that it's irrational (can't be represented as a ratio). I forget how the proof goes....
#6 - John Cena (08/08/2013) [-]
If it does you would need to know what the look for its like look for peach blind folded it really means nothing
#5 - John Cena (08/08/2013) [-]
Pi may know the answers to the questions of the universe, but can it see why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch!!??
#2 - themanicmurican (08/08/2013) [-]
#11 to #2 - timelimit (08/08/2013) [-]
... I do...
 Friends (0)