Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
sir, I send a rhyme excelling, in sacred truth and rigid spelling,
numerical sprite elucidate for me the lexicon's full weight.
If nature gain who can complain?
the doctor's Johnson fulminate.
Pi
3.1415926535897932384
I how I wish I could recollect
of circle round the exact
relation Archimedes unwound
I may not get the context of your question and I am not sure if I can be of any assistance but let me come up with it anyway.
Complex numbers use a different base, but I do not recall how they work. Sure you'll find stuff on wikipedia. Anyway PI is a math constant and will therefore always stay the same even if you use the arc math. That is the good thing about a constant. If it is about the length of the number, why don't you cut it short? Your calculations will be approximations anyways. Won't they?
I remember using PI in those calculations but PI can only be calculated by going back to its roots. There are different ways, i.e. Archimedes developed a formula using a polygon with infinite corners to approximate a circle. There are other ways but they all end up describing the same thing and in terms of numbers the result always starts with 3.14. So PI can not be iterated as it is an infinite geometrical description. That is why the numbers after the comma are endless and do not repeat a pattern. And it has been calculated several times, so do not quite understand why you would want to do that. May I ask you what you are going to use it for?
So if I were to programm an algorithm or something (assuming PI is not set as a constant by default) I would define a variable and give it the value of 3.14. That is it. Otherwise I will need all the CPU just to calculate that number and I do not assume that is you goal.
I am not looking for a decimal value for PI. Clearly that is known to many more DECIMAL places than I would need. (the spreadsheet @PI function gives 3.14159265358979).
----------------
Comparing 10 and 12:
IF you have a 12 base then
if I ask for 1/2 you say 6
if I ask for 1/3 you say 4
if I ask for 1/4 you say 3
if I ask for 1/6 you say 2
IF you have a 10 base then
if I ask for 1/2 you say 5
if I ask for 1/3 you say 3.333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
if I ask for 1/4 you say 2.5
if I ask for 1/6 you say 1.111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
The number base chosen changes the complexity of the remainder (in the above example).
The original question, i.e. would a different number base (different from base ten) give a simpler remainder?
So in asking the question I thought a math whiz might say:
"not sure let me think on it"
and then
"Interesting using base ... x ... the value is x.fg
Do I get you right that you are looking for a way to cut the numbers after the coma?
I am not a math wiz though, but what I was trying to say is this. The number PI after the coma is endless. So if you change the base from 10 to whatever it is just changing the numbers but they would still be endless. A base within the rational numbers (1,2,3) does not change that issue. To me the only way would be to chose PI as the base (as it was mentioned in a post already). Then you would recieve the value 1. Everything else does not simplify the numbers. Unless you tell the spreasheat function manually after you recieve PI cut it short to 2 or 3 numbers after the coma.
Or you devide PI / PI and set a new variable that would also result in 1. But that does not make sense to me though.