+FourthDerivative Haha, yeah, I used to think math was something like that too. But it's a heck of a lot more beautiful than that, isn't it.

+FlyingPiper13 No, it's not

And he only passed by relying on the age-old method, "Just memorize the formulas and substitute, don't think".

Can't say I blame him. That's the method that's taught in school, and lets be honest, for the average person it isn't very enticing. I absolutely hated math in school! I never passed a test, infact I had to repeat algebra 3 times! It was stressful. It wasn't interesting, it wasn't fun, it wasn't intriguing. However, now that I've graduated from high school, I've seen the prettier side of math that, if I had learned and saw back then, would have been very interesting and more stimulating to learn! But now we're getting into psychology a bit, and for the average everyday person, if you're failing at things, you lose interest. I still do not like the way math is taught in school, because of what you said IS what happens. They don't show us interesting things! but now I'm just getting repetitive.

Ellie The Snow Fairy The issue is that the interesting things have a lot of math going into them, so teaching the interesting things off the bat will either be useless (You won't explain the math) or difficult (Hard math). Examples include all the popsci channels on youtube. How many channels are there, exactly, like VSauce? Numberphile? Honestly, even Standup Maths to a very small extent, where they teach you really cool ideas, and you get a sense of "Now I know more", but in the end you're still just as bad at math and science as before? It's easy to get people interested in black holes, rocketry, quantum physics, and to tell them things like "The sun is like a big nuclear reactor! And it's like nuclear bombs are going off in the center constantly! Computer chips are so small, electrons can jump from one circuit to another by chance because of quantum mechanics!", but at the end of the day they don't understand a thing of how it works. They can't even tell you how fast a ball will roll down a ramp, even if they memorized the analogy for the double-slit experiment. All that happens is they feel smart and then they comment "OMG, why doesn't anyone else like this stuff? Is it because I'm smarter than everyone around me?". Then they make idiots of themselves by taking analogies seriously. "If a human doesn't look at a particle, then it doesn't exist! Uncertainty! Schrodinger!". To summarize: Education is a hell of a bitch to handle. People who are good at it seriously deserve to be more distinguished.

@Viktor Magnusson you would be surprised some people can especially if you look at your memory as a piece of paper and pen

all you need is the list of all known prime numbers

@@Sora_Halomon please explain

@@Sora_Halomon just use the nth term for the prime numbers

Might be easier to use a faster series

Ashay Dwivedi my mind is blown

Yeah, mine was too

It is in base 60 though. This comment was sponsored by Jane Street and SIXTY. It’s a cool number.

Call 1-60S-IXT-YSIX

This comes on after the British weather forecast.

Having seen the final result I think I agree that this is better. Another commenter has pointed out that this is accurate to a 1/3748629th; good enough and much easier to calculate.

+Sam Fisk It'd be easier to just remember the digits.

Each to his own. I'd just use Google...

The purpose of an approximation like 553/113 is for use in longhand calculations.

77gravity And sometimes physicists use fractions, like when using the fine-structure constant, a~1/137.

Its pi, classic parker circle

No, it was 3/14/16 Correct to 4 decimal places.

@@Jivvi technically it's 3.14159... but I guess yeah, 3.1416

@@mongoose.officialcorrect to 4

@niraj panakhaniya someone ruined it niraj, we must find them

One of those days where you 1st try to find π 2nd start turning into a Smurf 3rd murder a Smurf 4th fail at finding π

Here, ill solve it for you: Let pi = x 1pi=x Divide both sides by pi 1=x/pi Now we can find the real value. So if I hit backspace three times on the last step, we find that: 1=x, so pi=1

xX GojiCrafter Xx lmao

@@goji_crafter forgot the sign change

@@goji_crafter underrated comment ik this was a year ago

that's not an equation, that's an expression. You can tell because an equation typically has an equal sign.

you can use trig functions to estimate it using polygons with more and more sides it's been done up to millions of sides in the past I think.

Already the Greek mathematician Archimedes did this up to an amazing 96 sided inner and outer polygon. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes#Mathematics

But then you need to know the trig functions to a high accuracy ;-)

+ Bjowolf2 All you need to know about the trig functions to use Archimedes' method is: sin30º = ½ tan30º = 1/√3 and the half-angle formulas for both sin and tan. Which in turn, means that you have to know how to extract square roots.

ffggddss Yes, I know, but did the Greeks know that and how to do that?

+chinareds54 I am 25; when I was in grade school, this method was taught under the name "short division".

+chinareds54 lol yeah this way is much more convenient i have no idea why they dont teach it instead

+Brenden Patch that explains why there's a long division and not a short division

that is called short division fyi

wait what? this is the only way i've ever seen long division done. what is this other method?

you're aware that was 800 years afterwards?

@@peorakef Yes. That doesn't mean it's less of an extraordinary feat though.

@@kurumi394 Yes. That doesn't mean you have a point.

Archimedes also invented calculus in his lost magnum opus "The Method" a feat not replicated for a few thousand years after a number of mathematic advances were made that archimedes didn't have access to so...he's arguably the most brilliant mathematician to ever live

@@j.moonstorm3158 I'll disagree in one word, Euclid.

I love finding one of my favorite youtubers commenting on loads of the science/maths youtube videos i watch :)

+Cody'sLab But I was trying to calculate the circle constant… :]

+standupmaths Roasted!

+Cody'sLab Holy crap, Cody!

+standupmaths Nice one

+Kevin Octacok glad to hear i'm not alone with that feeling :)

yeah I could literally watch him do the whole thing with no cuts

+Kevin Octacok It's like a meditation. It's simple, but it's so beautiful in its perfection.

+Kevin Octacok, most of what he is talking about I already know so it's not like I'm being educated. Where is the original research?

Reivivus The original research is that man's beautiful face and charming wit.

This also highlights how well you can do just by measuring a circle with a piece of string.

+TheOneManGeekArmy I guess 3.14159

Yes.

+kVI Aak *3.04

+kVI Aak you mean 3.04183

+Summy99 *3.04184

+EpicUltraKingSmizzy my thoughts exactly.

this is actually where i learned to divide in my head, they didnt teach me that on school, they legit said "just divide"

I learned how to divide long ago but forgot, now I know again.

same here i entirely forgot to divide by hand due to calculators^^

MegaMGstudios that is really sad ._.

John McKeown step is 1 by default

In case people want to run this in their browser in place, here is a roughly equivalent one-liner in javascript: ((t)=> 4*(new Array(t)).fill(0).map((_,i)=>Math.pow(-1,i)/(2*i+1)).reduce((a, v)=> a+v))(10) You might also want to explicitly console.log the result of the above expression and/or change the precision like so: console.log(((t)=> 4*(new Array(t)).fill(0).map((_,i)=>Math.pow(-1,i)/(2*i+1)).reduce((a, v)=> a+v))(10000000))

@@beckles103 good point.

this is wrong i got 3.0418396189294032 xD

@@x_star6100 It's an approximation. Replace the 10 with a much higher number and you will get a better approximation. try 10000 or higher and you'll see it gets a little better. Convergence is very slow though.

What do you do with witches?

burn them?

@@jackmack1061 gooooooooooooooooooooooooooood

@@jackmack1061 and what do you burn aside from witches?

lol, that movie terrified me as a child. Nightmares...

Actually, thats the part that the video really starts. I wonder if that was a coincidence

Thiago Morais probably not

no way. on a separate note i love when people spell favorite with a u

lol

@@prakharsingh9089 xd

i did it on a calculator, still got 3.041...

Cole Vohs British way? I thought it was common knowledge

he's Australian

The way to multiply too !

I don't like it, because it looks a lot like a square root symbol. I tend to dislike any notation which could be confused for being something else...

That’s the way everyone did it before pocket calculators were invented! “Never throw away your last pencil.”-me

The magic of KZfaq

No you're wrong

@@zoellazayce6796 compelling argument

@@Supertimegamingify I must agree

Ye, he forgot to round the 20th digit, i think in all of them

@@henriquemesquita5692 no

+Dixavd That was just a speech error. He was pointing to a seven as he said three and the product of 28 is correct.

kdmq Oh I know, I just thought it was funny.

4+[3×(4+4)] is 28.

I'm saving money with cheap low-density decimal points. But they do tend to drift off.

+standupmaths Haha that made it better XD

+standupmaths That's one of the best retorts I've ever seen in a comment thread. Beautiful. But why not splurge a bit for PiDay? Get the good stuff.

+byalexandr You draw your decimal points way too low and they look like full stops.

Correctrix periods and decimal points are the same character ..

+Eric Pratt but prime numbers tho

Iorveth AFAIK this is a thing in the UK

I've also seen people on this channel drawing the multiplication symbol where the rest of us would place the decimal point and was quite confused - apparently this is normal somewhere?

It's not normal anywhere. Nothing is normal in Brexitannia.

Yeah, it's their thing. With a bit of discernment, you can translate it to the American way. Cheers.

Sorry, who uses a point as a multiplication sign? X has always been the sign that I've known... Or * for computers

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is no Easter Egg... Diameter is (2 * radius) and circumference is (2 * pi * radius). Therefore, by dividing circumference by diameter, regardless of the value, will always return pi.

+Shantanu Modak NICE! .... ;)

Also, you used the wrong "its/it's". Although the apostrophe is usually used for the possessive form, in this case, it is used to contract "it" and "is" into a single word. Additionally, I'm pretending to be smart by being fancy.

+sebamc4 Listen, it's not an Easter Egg, ok? Do it with any other number and you'll see.

Ju-In Hum yes, i had math in high school. I was playin the joke along... thats why i put the ";)"

Oh my god

Me too 😊

+Nikolaj Lepka Yup, I'm watching this while procrastinating/finding motivation to study for a math exam (albeit a very basic one). I can now to division by hand magnitudes easier than what I was originally taught.

S4R1N We were taught long division at school, and it was so cumbersome and confusing I never really bothered to learn it. Now, I'm a programmer, so I deal with integer division and modulo operations all the time, so short division just seems so much more natural, because all it deals with is remainders

GamerGeek like multiplication.

UK thing

Well that's how we do it in grade school, but the dot is used to avoid confusion with x as a variable.

CubeMania We do any of three things. We could write that as: 6 × 2 6 * 2 6 • 2 My preferred method is the dot. It's quickest to write and avoids confusions with any variables named x.

The letter x and multiplication symbol are very different in UK mathematics, so it's easy to distinguish between them. The x is curly, and the multiplication symbol is too straight lines crossing.

Never mind "Smurf Fingers" would be better.

"One man's battle with recurring digits."

+Eric Loesch Are you sure? I think "Smurf Murderer" is a lot better

+dopplegänger_01 Yes, I was initially more fascinated by that han the actual discussion of pi itself. I guess that shows the real level of my mathematical understanding! Oh well, you have to learn to crawl before you can learn to walk, as they say.

Yes, same here, actually (sorry if my comments mislead). It seems like a pretty practical method. Who knows? I may use it in the future.

+Sam Auciello sorry, but wouldn't it be March 14th? at say... 15 hours? :)

+Eli Kübler-Ross Well obviously Π is 3.04

+Eli Kübler-Ross It's a joke from the video.

What is a chanber and how do I find one to go die in?

Dude, does your town not have a local chanber? I feel so bad for you, man. That's my favorite place to die! I do it once a month to relax. Yes. I die once a month, intentionally. Apparently.

The result given by you is the one i got too; I think he made a typo when adding the numbers; his result for pi/4 is correct apart from the eighth digit where it should read 0 instead of 9; pi/4 = 0.7604599 0 47323505528. But still very impressive doing it by hand that well. I did it with Mathematica.

Don't forget that he used only ten fractions out of a literal infinite pool, ...

He made the mistake at 1/13

@@SGAMaddin It would be incorrect he didn't use all the numbers, and adding rational numbers give a rational result, unless added infinitely

Actually it is. 0,9999999999999... = 1

it was a joke, pal

+jeromesnail Difference?

Except that he's rounding up after 20 digits, so 0.999999... would be rounded up to 1.000000... etc anyway

+verne ment no difference, I just misunderstood the comment. My bad!

No its just "Parker Pi"

+bob mike I didn't even know she had one!

+nman rman DAMMIT YOU BEAT ME TO IT.

*malicious grin*

A Classic Parker Pie

Calculating pi while eating lunch.

I eat kids Souls Calculating pi while putting out a grease fire.

+John Reynolds Calculating pi while defeating the foundation...

+DrPengin 1,000,000 Media 0.000...04 because he multiplies with 4

+DrPengin 1,000,000 Media That is 0

+WolfOfLegend No, it would not be due to rounding because there *is no rounding.* It's just like how 0.999... = 1 without "rounding" of any sort.

+Ginger Bread Yes, it IS rounding; round infinitely many sixes to 19 sixes and a seven, which is twice as close to true as rounding it to 20 sixes. And, yes, an infinite string of 9's will equal 1; but a finite string of 9's will not.

+ffggddss But Matt was obviously truncating rather than rounding.

+Nicholas Wright (Toothpick Nick) April 3rd...

+Josh O'fortune 22nd of July

Dan Dart parker multiplication

"Six times nine is forty-two."

+LarlemMagic I was about to comment this lol

GO FOR THE EYES, BOO!

+warpcore05 Wow! He was lucky that was a seven...

He put 1.00000000000000000000-0.33333333333333333333=0.6666666666666666666666666 but it's actually 0.66666666666666666667

@@limecyanizer4394 duh

@@limecyanizer4394 xd

+Jamie F Do a matt parker explains out of this!

It's actually just a disguised version of the odd reciprocals, you just factorise and use geometric series (essentially)

My intuition is that you would not be able to decompose PI back to primes like that. Seems intractable.

You *could* do this but it is ... impractical.

my guess is no simply because you need to know if they are 1 or 3 mod 4 to know if they were added or subtracted.

Hm. I don't see how. In order to calculate a single term of the series you would need to know the partial sums... which would require knowing the terms to calculate. Unless there's a closed formula for the partial sums, which I doubt, this doesn't seem feasible.

Oh you better not!

+jqerty Get out

+PiTau he did....he just did...

+jqerty Look at this heretic.

+jqerty Knickers twisted.

only problem is the earth isnt an exact sphere

@@willsumner6914 the Earth is a Parker sphere

@@willsumner6914 mas é muito próximo disso, dá pra ter uma boa noção com um baixo erro

you want him to walk around the circumference of the earth?

***** yes. 1·0 is (1*0), not 1.0.

***** oh im sorry. skeletons seem to give off a sarcastic vibe for some reason.