1047: "Approximations"
Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates
 rhomboidal
 Posts: 801
 Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:25 pm UTC
 Contact:
1047: "Approximations"
Title Text: Two tips: 1) 8675309 is not just prime, it's a twin prime, and 2) if you ever find yourself raising log(anything)^e or taking the pith root of anything, set down the marker and back away from the whiteboard; something has gone horribly wrong.
This would make a cool cheat sheet. And an even cooler tattoo.
 bitwiseshiftleft
 Posts: 295
 Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:07 am UTC
 Location: Stanford
 Contact:
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
Spoiler:

 Posts: 8
 Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:08 am UTC
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
The error in the first Protip is pretty big though. If only the fractions were added instead of subtracted. I am going to use the radius of the earth one from now on  just to confuse anyone reading my work.
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
The gas constant is expressed in J/gmol.K and not J/kgmol.K which would be the SI unit.
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
The stated accuracy of g is about an order of magnitude off  it's accurate to about 1 in 80,000, not 750,000. I don't know about the others, but I was surprised to learn that an international standard was actually defined to that precision, given that it varies by more than 1 in 200, hence I ended up checking it.
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
Some of the more accurate, yet still elegant ones tempt the idyllic pseudoscientist in me.
G ≈ 1 over {e^(π  1)^(π + 1)}
... consider {m^3} over {kg*s^2} when off by 1:25000 ... on a galactic scale is still significant. It's the difference between getting a speedy pickmeup from passing near a blackhole, and winding up with a cyborg's vision of hell set to Disneymusic of all things.
G ≈ 1 over {e^(π  1)^(π + 1)}
... consider {m^3} over {kg*s^2} when off by 1:25000 ... on a galactic scale is still significant. It's the difference between getting a speedy pickmeup from passing near a blackhole, and winding up with a cyborg's vision of hell set to Disneymusic of all things.
 bitwiseshiftleft
 Posts: 295
 Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:07 am UTC
 Location: Stanford
 Contact:
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
Also, e^(pi * sqrt(163)) ~ 640320^3 + 744. But that one is famous. And was found by a method other than brute force.
 BlitzGirl
 Posts: 9121
 Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:48 am UTC
 Location: Out of the basement for Yip 6! Schizoblitz: 115/2672 NP
 Contact:
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
Unfortunately, the only one of these I'm going to remember is the RENT Method.
Present some of the others with heartwrenching vocals and perhaps I'd retain them.
Present some of the others with heartwrenching vocals and perhaps I'd retain them.
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
𝜋 seconds in a nanocentury, much neater 75^4 in a year.
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
The number of seconds in a year, to better than 1%, is [math]pi * 10^7[/math]
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
hemflit wrote:Pi seconds in a nanocentury, much neater 75^4 in a year.
My favourite as well. What puzzles me is that sometimes I even use it.

 Posts: 3
 Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:07 am UTC
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
My favorite is miles * phi = kilometers
(accurate to .54%)
(phi is about 1.6180339887)
(accurate to .54%)
(phi is about 1.6180339887)

 Posts: 3
 Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 5:07 pm UTC
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
Within about 0.5%, there are pi times ten million seconds in a year.
For added fun when trolling, throw in that Earth's orbit being an ellipse instead of a perfect circle is what throws it off from being exactly right.
For added fun when trolling, throw in that Earth's orbit being an ellipse instead of a perfect circle is what throws it off from being exactly right.
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
I don't think I've ever seen accuracy used like that in this sort of context. Does someone want to explain what it means? I had a quick look at the seconds in a year but I't not really any clearer to me. In context of a fluid 1 part in 400 would make sense to me but I've been too long away from Uni to begin to remember this stuff.
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
2^42.42
So beautiful. Makes me want to jump in the ol' Heart of Gold and go cruising.
Many Kudos, sir.
So beautiful. Makes me want to jump in the ol' Heart of Gold and go cruising.
Many Kudos, sir.

 Posts: 3
 Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 5:07 pm UTC
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
Shidoshi wrote:The gas constant is expressed in J/gmol.K and not J/kgmol.K which would be the SI unit.
I've never seen the abbreviations "gmol" or "kgmol", but the SI units of the gas constant are Joules per mole Kelvin, and moles are defined as if they were based on grams instead of kg. Probably because the chemists threatened insurrection otherwise... grams are a much more convenient laboratory unit.
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
TheoGB wrote:I don't think I've ever seen accuracy used like that in this sort of context. Does someone want to explain what it means?
Approximations. Notice how everything is rounded off with lots of trailing zeroes.
Consider the variation that the given approximation is from the actual standard.
The size of discrepancy is called one part to the actual measure's Whateveritgetsrounded
Demonstrating the first item on the list:
One LightYear (meters) ≈ 99^8 ... "Accurate to Within: One part in 40" Let's say 1:40 ...
99^8 m = 9 227 446 944 279 201 m
1 ly = 9 460 730 472 580 800 m
1 ly  99^8 = 233 283 528 301 599 = d
d/ly ≈ 0.0246580... that's just less than 2.5% which can be restated concisely (that's the key here) as, "This approximation is accurate to within one part in Forty".
Last edited by JimsMaher on Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:58 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
I don't think I've ever seen accuracy used like that in this sort of context. Does someone want to explain what it means? I had a quick look at the seconds in a year but I't not really any clearer to me. In context of a fluid 1 part in 400 would make sense to me but I've been too long away from Uni to begin to remember this stuff.
This took me a while, but it simply means that using this estimation you will be accurate with in one whole number if you don't go beyond this value given
Quick Example
40* 99^8 is a little over 39 light years not 40.
So if you look at the individual estimations they look fairly off since we are used to looking for accuracy up to the 3 or 4th decimal, but in practical terms if your asked does X meters equal a light year X / 99^8th will give a fairly accurate yes or no answer but after 40 light years you start to be off by 1 or 2
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
ptorquemada wrote:Shidoshi wrote:The gas constant is expressed in J/gmol.K and not J/kgmol.K which would be the SI unit.
I've never seen the abbreviations "gmol" or "kgmol", but the SI units of the gas constant are Joules per mole Kelvin, and moles are defined as if they were based on grams instead of kg. Probably because the chemists threatened insurrection otherwise... grams are a much more convenient laboratory unit.
I've been recently through ChemEng and now they are starting to use "kilogram moles" and "gram moles", that way everything can be expressed in kg without much problem. Carbon12's molar mass is 12g/gmol or 12kg/kgmol (or even 12lb/lbmol if you swing that way). It's a somewhat new concept yeah, but it sure helps putting everything to SI and making less confusion.
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
Is that an Imperial gallon, a US liquid gallon, or one of the various deprecated or antiquated standards for a gallon?
GEC
I want to create a truly new commandline shell for Unix.
Anybody want to place bets on whether I ever get any code written?
I want to create a truly new commandline shell for Unix.
Anybody want to place bets on whether I ever get any code written?
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
Willl wrote:The stated accuracy of g is about an order of magnitude off  it's accurate to about 1 in 80,000, not 750,000. I don't know about the others, but I was surprised to learn that an international standard was actually defined to that precision, given that it varies by more than 1 in 200, hence I ended up checking it.
You forgot to divide by g.
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
Let:
A = actual standard
B = approximation
Expressed as being accurate to within one part in
{ (A  B)/A } rounded up to nearest greater fraction whose reciprocal decimal form has no more than two significant digits.
Check, please.
A = actual standard
B = approximation
Expressed as being accurate to within one part in
{ (A  B)/A } rounded up to nearest greater fraction whose reciprocal decimal form has no more than two significant digits.
Check, please.
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
Shidoshi wrote:ptorquemada wrote:Shidoshi wrote:The gas constant is expressed in J/gmol.K and not J/kgmol.K which would be the SI unit.
I've never seen the abbreviations "gmol" or "kgmol", but the SI units of the gas constant are Joules per mole Kelvin, and moles are defined as if they were based on grams instead of kg. Probably because the chemists threatened insurrection otherwise... grams are a much more convenient laboratory unit.
I've been recently through ChemEng and now they are starting to use "kilogram moles" and "gram moles", that way everything can be expressed in kg without much problem. Carbon12's molar mass is 12g/gmol or 12kg/kgmol (or even 12lb/lbmol if you swing that way). It's a somewhat new concept yeah, but it sure helps putting everything to SI and making less confusion.
That just looks, so wrong.
If one would insist on doing this kilomoles would make some sense and proper use of SI, but kilogram moles... sorry no. Weird engineers.
edit: phew, wiki suggests even engineers adhere to the rules at times and modern practice is using kilomole.
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
How embarrassing. Right you are.bjornart wrote:You forgot to divide by g.
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
according to Wolfram Alpha, the White House switchboard equation comes out to 0.212456141492...
To get ten places after the decimal, you have to round that nine, giving 2124561415, which is NOT the switchboard number.
ETA: Jenny's constant comes out to 867.53090198..., which is acceptable.
To get ten places after the decimal, you have to round that nine, giving 2124561415, which is NOT the switchboard number.
ETA: Jenny's constant comes out to 867.53090198..., which is acceptable.
Last edited by Coderjoe on Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:19 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
(I got a tweet about this strip nearly instantly after it went online...)
Today's RIES date:
(((pi+1/2)^(1/7) * pi)^2 * pi)^2 = 2012.0425...
Robert Munafo  mrob.com/ries
Today's RIES date:
(((pi+1/2)^(1/7) * pi)^2 * pi)^2 = 2012.0425...
Robert Munafo  mrob.com/ries

 Posts: 8
 Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 4:08 am UTC
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
Randall wins again. P.S. You are all nerds fact checking a web comic. Great Job, make your professors proud! Also, your mom plus me makes a "That what she said joke"  Enjoy
Love the comics and nerds, keep it up bitches!
Love the comics and nerds, keep it up bitches!
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
NeilUK wrote:The number of seconds in a year, to better than 1%, is [math]pi * 10^7[/math]
Bitch, please. 10_{7.5} seconds.
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
For anyone else still wondering about Jenny's constant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg_YueZ4fi8&t=42s
http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/8675309.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8675309/Jenny
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg_YueZ4fi8&t=42s
http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/8675309.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8675309/Jenny
Look at me, still talking when there's Science to do.
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
Smatchmo wrote:2^42.42
So beautiful. Makes me want to jump in the ol' Heart of Gold and go cruising.
Many Kudos, sir.
You mean "Much kudos". It's an abstract singular, not a plural.
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
... and you're a nerd commenting on the nerds, and I'm a nerd commenting on a nerd commenting on the nerds. Oh atheia, we're so meta it burns! Loving the "your mom" joke; it makes you look so edgy. Well done!alextrabec wrote:You are all nerds fact checking a web comic.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
if you ever find yourself raising log(anything)^e or taking the pith root of anything, set down the marker and back away from the whiteboard; something has gone horribly wrong.
I'll say something has gone horribly wrong! YOU'RE DOING MATH

 Posts: 15
 Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:25 am UTC
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
9.81 is much easier to remember for g.
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
I am Robert Munafo, who made the RIES program. I accidentally reposted the earlier comment after thinking it was rejected for having a link...
So to comply with the "don't repost, edit instead" rule, and to make this post useful, here are a couple more wacky formulae that didn't make xkcd this time around:
[math]\sqrt{8+\sqrt{2+\sqrt{0+\sqrt{5}}}} = \pi[/math]
Start with any X, then calculate the following:
[math]\sqrt{\sqrt{e^{6}/(x+1)}}[/math]
then use this as the new X, and repeat. It converges on: 3.1415926825119...
So to comply with the "don't repost, edit instead" rule, and to make this post useful, here are a couple more wacky formulae that didn't make xkcd this time around:
[math]\sqrt{8+\sqrt{2+\sqrt{0+\sqrt{5}}}} = \pi[/math]
Start with any X, then calculate the following:
[math]\sqrt{\sqrt{e^{6}/(x+1)}}[/math]
then use this as the new X, and repeat. It converges on: 3.1415926825119...
Last edited by mrob27 on Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:10 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
i believe jenny's constant's last 3 digits are 209, not 902 (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nVZnhecGolcJ:danstheman.com/Jenny.htm).
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
... and how cool is Robert Munafo's RIES, by the way!

 Posts: 6
 Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:20 pm UTC
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
Even now you're too much of a mathematician to dare to say [imath]\pi \approx \sqrt{10}[/imath]. kudos.
 Dobblesworth
 Dobblesworth, here's the title you requested over three years ago. Banana
 Posts: 1429
 Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:06 pm UTC
 Contact:
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
One of the bottom six according to Wolfram is an approximation. The sqrt 5 one. Decimal approximations given by Wolfram for the two terms don't match it seems.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%2 ... 8244pi%29
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sqrt+5
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%2 ... 8244pi%29
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sqrt+5

 Posts: 2
 Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 3:40 am UTC
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
My favorite one is π=355/113, just to irritate my students who insist π is irrational.
355/113 is 3.14159292, so much better than 22/7.
355/113 is 3.14159292, so much better than 22/7.
 RyanfaeScotland
 Posts: 29
 Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:13 pm UTC
Re: 1047: "Approximations"
I notice Randall uses billions for the world population but millions for the US population. Why is he being dishonest?