I have read about how they calculate the value of $\pi$ using polygons.

A hexagon inside a circle gives an approximation of $\mathbf{\pi} = 3.00$, then doubling the number of the number of polygon sides gives a closer approximation of $3.10582$, and if we keep doubling the amount of sides the value for $\pi$ starts to plateau. At $1536$ sides, we get the first six digits of $\pi = 3.14159$.

calculating pi spreadsheet

Would it be fair to say that the value of $\pi$ that we use is just a very close approximation? To me it seems that no matter how many sides a polygon has, its perimeter will always be less than the circumference of a circle that encloses it.

Are there any other proofs for $\pi$ that are 'not too technical'?

  • 2
    any practical experiments done that prove the value of π What does that even mean? See perhaps Buffon's needle. – dxiv Jan 29 at 0:18
  • 2
    Circles do not exist in the physical world, so what kind of practical experiments do you want? – Yuriy S Jan 29 at 0:19
  • 2
    Look at this interesting site the world of PI for a history about the calculations / algorithms etc. on $\pi$ – G Cab Jan 29 at 0:28
  • 2
    A practical experiment (in contrast to a calculation) always gives approximate values. You can never measure exactly $1$ second, $1$ meter or whatsoever because the precision is always limited. Moreover, the decimal expansion of $\pi$ does not have a period (We know that $\pi$ is irrational), so we can never write down the complete decimal expansion ( not even with marking a period like in the case of rational numbers). – Peter Jan 29 at 0:42
  • 3
    We can also safely say that there is no practical expermient (or measurement) , that can approve the first $200$ digits of $\pi$ (Probably, this is already a big overshoot). And, if we have , for example , a circle or a ball, we cannot even determine whether it is actually an exact circle, ball or whatsoever by an experiment. The polygon-method never reaches $\pi$ , but it approaches $\pi$. Archimedes determined $\pi$ astonishing precisely this way. The accuracy appears poor for today standards, but with the tools Archimedes had it was a really good performance. – Peter Jan 29 at 0:49

Your Answer

 

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.