1047: "Approximations"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Magistrates, Prelates

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 pi-th 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.

rhomboidal

Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:25 pm UTC

Re: 1047: "Approximations"

Spoiler:
cos(\pi / 7) + cos(3\pi/7) + cos(5\pi/7)
= -\Re(\zeta_7+\zeta_7^2+\zeta_7^3)
= \frac12 - \frac12(1 + \zeta_7 + \zeta_7 ^2 + \zeta_7^3 + \zeta_7^4 + \zeta_7^5 + \zeta_7^6)
= \frac12

bitwiseshiftleft

Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:07 am UTC
Location: Stanford

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.
somebody_else

Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:08 am UTC

Re: 1047: "Approximations"

The gas constant is expressed in J/gmol.K and not J/kgmol.K which would be the SI unit.

Shidoshi

Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:21 am UTC
Location: France

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.
Willl

Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:44 pm UTC

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 pick-me-up from passing near a black-hole, and winding up with a cyborg's vision of hell set to Disney-music of all things.
"I would therefore take the liberty of suggesting that, in the next edition of your excellent poem, the erroneous calculation to which I refer should be corrected ... "
JimsMaher

Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:14 pm UTC

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.

bitwiseshiftleft

Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:07 am UTC
Location: Stanford

Re: 1047: "Approximations"

Unfortunately, the only one of these I'm going to remember is the RENT Method.

Present some of the others with heart-wrenching vocals and perhaps I'd retain them.
Knight Temporal of the One True Comic
Mopey Molpy Mome of Newpage 633
BlitzGirl the First
Spoiler:

Blog
Spoiler:
Onward, my molpy army!

BlitzGirl

Posts: 509
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:48 am UTC
Location: Blitzing Through the Past: Newpage 668/691

Re: 1047: "Approximations"

𝜋 seconds in a nanocentury, much neater 75^4 in a year.
hemflit

Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 11:53 pm UTC

Re: 1047: "Approximations"

The number of seconds in a year, to better than 1%, is
pi * 10^7
NeilUK

Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:05 am UTC

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.
MacGeb

Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:08 am UTC

Re: 1047: "Approximations"

My favorite is miles * phi = kilometers
(accurate to .54%)
(phi is about 1.6180339887)
scooterboo

Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:07 am 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.

Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 5:07 pm UTC

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.
TheoGB

Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:38 pm UTC

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.
Smatchmo

Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 4:49 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.

Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 5:07 pm UTC

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 Whatever-it-gets-rounded-updown-to.

Demonstrating the first item on the list:
One Light-Year (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.
"I would therefore take the liberty of suggesting that, in the next edition of your excellent poem, the erroneous calculation to which I refer should be corrected ... "
JimsMaher

Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:14 pm UTC

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
Ignitus

Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 8:48 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.

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.

Shidoshi

Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:21 am UTC
Location: France

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 command-line shell for Unix.
Anybody want to place bets on whether I ever get any code written?

tetsujin

Posts: 420
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

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.
bjornart

Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:55 pm UTC

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.

"I would therefore take the liberty of suggesting that, in the next edition of your excellent poem, the erroneous calculation to which I refer should be corrected ... "
JimsMaher

Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1047: "Approximations"

Shidoshi 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.
Seli

Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:01 am UTC

Re: 1047: "Approximations"

bjornart wrote:You forgot to divide by g.
How embarrassing. Right you are.
Willl

Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:44 pm UTC

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.
Last edited by Coderjoe on Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:19 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Coderjoe

Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:05 pm UTC

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

mrob27

Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:19 am UTC
Location: Cambridge, USA

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!
alextrabec

Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 4:08 am UTC

Re: 1047: "Approximations"

NeilUK wrote:The number of seconds in a year, to better than 1%, is
pi * 10^7

Bitch, please. 107.5 seconds.
Army1987

Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 2:49 pm UTC

Re: 1047: "Approximations"

Look at me, still talking when there's Science to do.
hthall

Posts: 98
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:40 am UTC

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.
peaty

Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 6:49 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: 1047: "Approximations"

alextrabec wrote:You are all nerds fact checking a web comic.
... 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!
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..."

Red Hal
Magically Delicious

Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC
Location: IO85IV76SK09(Maidenhead), 30UVG8319695195(MGRS), MKML43875411(Georef)

Re: 1047: "Approximations"

if you ever find yourself raising log(anything)^e or taking the pi-th 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
scharb

Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:09 pm UTC

Re: 1047: "Approximations"

9.81 is much easier to remember for g.
jacksonliam91

Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:25 am UTC

Re: 1047: "Approximations"

I am Robert Munafo, who made the RIES program. I accidentally re-posted 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:

\sqrt{8+\sqrt{2+\sqrt{0+\sqrt{5}}}} = \pi

Start with any X, then calculate the following:

\sqrt{\sqrt{e^{6}/(x+1)}}

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.

mrob27

Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:19 am UTC
Location: Cambridge, USA

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).
jutzin

Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 4:08 pm UTC

Re: 1047: "Approximations"

... and how cool is Robert Munafo's RIES, by the way!
jutzin

Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 4:08 pm UTC

Re: 1047: "Approximations"

Even now you're too much of a mathematician to dare to say \pi \approx \sqrt{10}. kudos.

Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:20 pm UTC

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 ... 824-4pi%29
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sqrt+5
Position vacant: new signature. No experience necessary, apply within.
User title GET.

Dobblesworth
Dobblesworth, here's the title you requested over three years ago. -Banana

Posts: 1419
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:06 pm 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.
mistapotta

Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 3:40 am UTC

Re: 1047: "Approximations"

I notice Randall uses billions for the world population but millions for the US population. Why is he being dishonest?

RyanfaeScotland

Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:13 pm UTC

Next