• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
szecs

Pi = 4. Discuss.

91 posts in this topic

I once discovered the diagonal paradox when I was studying reflective mirrors that are limits of right angle zigzag turns. In real life the type of mirror I was constructing is impossible because light will always have a wavelength larger than the 'resolution' of the bumpy mirror. As a math problem I showed it to my dad and then to an uncle is are really big into math (My uncle currently doesn't believe in real numbers). Needless to say it really bothered him; he then showed it to a bunch of his coworkers and mathematics graduate students. They thought it was really cool and couldn't figure it out, but knew something was weird. Eventually a professor in functional analysis was asked about it, who was excited that other people were thinking about this kind of thing. He then showed a similar "proof" that could show that any number equals any other number.

The problem lies in the fact that this is what is called a 'monster curve'. A particular type of curve defined as the limit of a series of curves. The limit curve doesn't need to be the same curve as another curve (or some other construction) that has the limit of the total difference distance of zero. This was worked on by mathematicians in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Eventually we got Rigorous Functional Analysis and Fractals.

Fun stuff

A bit off topic but, now after a few years as a programmer in the video game business, a math tutor, or recently unemployed, I'm getting psyched for finally getting myself into graduate school. I'm planning on studying up in pure mathematics. My bachelors was in applied / numerical math.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fractal surrounding the sphere will always be on the outside. The area between the circle and fractal will have infinitely many very small rectangles that are on the outside.

The circumference obtained using this method is strict upper bound but does not define lower bound. So whatever value is obtained using this method, it's guaranteed to be strictly larger than circumference of circle.


PI, as per such definition, is computed using circumference of circumscribed shape (can be rectangle) and inscribed shape (which is missing in this definition).
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Antheus
The circumference obtained using this method is strict upper bound but does not define lower bound. So whatever value is obtained using this method, it's guaranteed to be strictly larger than circumference of circle.

Yes it is strictly larger, but it is still very useful. The number is accurate when performed properly, and it is a precise solution at the limit.

This was half of the classical methods of estimating pi to a certain precision.

They would subdivide slices or regular polyhedra on the outside and again on the inside. This gave an upper bound and lower bound. The mathematician could iterate until the solution converged enough for their necessary precision.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Antheus
The fractal surrounding the sphere will always be on the outside. The area between the circle and fractal will have infinitely many very small rectangles that are on the outside.

The circumference obtained using this method is strict upper bound but does not define lower bound. So whatever value is obtained using this method, it's guaranteed to be strictly larger than circumference of circle.


PI, as per such definition, is computed using circumference of circumscribed shape (can be rectangle) and inscribed shape (which is missing in this definition).


Can maybe you explain this in a different way? If the problem is that there is smaller areas between the circle and fractal, why doesn't the approximation get better as we approach infinity?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imagine if you drew tiny squiggles and spirals along the path, but they were so tiny that if you zoomed out so they're too small to see, it looked like a curved line and made a big circle.

This is that.

But it's not a circle, so if you trace the perimeter, you'll get an inflated number. You might write "This is not a circle" under it and put it up as post-modern art.

That's the flaw in it; it's specious reasoning. It's dressed up to look like it'd work, but it is intentionally designed to give an artificially inflated figure, and as long as Pi is expected to give us the area, it is quantifiably wrong; you can see that the area of your shape does approach 3.14*0.5^2, veering off sharply from 4*0.5^2. So the figure in question can disprove its own result.

Increasing the sides of a polygon also doesn't give us a true circle, it only gives us Pi to the nearest however many digits. So there isn't a right way. But there is a quantifiably useful way.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter what the flaw in it is; the important thing is that it only looks like there isn't a flaw because through our limited perception it looks circleish.

[Edited by - JoeCooper on December 1, 2010 2:00:54 PM]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, everybody knows that pi = 3 + 1/7. All modern mathematical sophistries aside, this has been known for nearly 5000 years. :-)

You wouldn't want to doubt the guys who built the Great Pyramid, who were admittedly the most fucking awesome mathematicans and architects ever living, considering that their only technical means were wax tablets, clay, ropes, wooden poles, and an awful lot of slave hands.

But, jokes aside, the diagonal paradox is a funny one, it's something I never really grasped either (but eventually one just accepts that something can be wrong even if it looks right) :-)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by frob
Quote:
Original post by Antheus
The circumference obtained using this method is strict upper bound but does not define lower bound. So whatever value is obtained using this method, it's guaranteed to be strictly larger than circumference of circle.


They would subdivide slices or regular polyhedra on the outside and again on the inside. This gave an upper bound and lower bound. The mathematician could iterate until the solution converged enough for their necessary precision.


But would you get the correct result if you tried to create a lower bound with a similar construction with an inscribed square? With what little I know about fractals, I wouldn't be surprised if you told me that "lower bound" turns out to be infinite.

Quote:
Original post by nilkn
The limit curve is not a circle.

Is it even differentiable at any point?


Quote:
Original post by JoeCooper
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter what the flaw in it is; the important thing is that it only looks like there isn't a flaw because through our limited perception it looks circleish.


But these criticisms also apply to circumscribing regular polygons (e.g. is an infinity-gon differentiable at any point?), which does yield pi. This is why the explanation does matter. Without understanding why it doesn't work, you don't really know when it will or won't work. It's why people use "...and I" as the object of a sentence after being told not to use "...and me" as the subject.

Also, because "I said so" isn't a satisfying mathematical explanation.

EDIT: This is actually wrong. The infinity-gon is differentiable. However, the construction in the OP still seems to fulfill the usual definition of a circle: all the points in a plane that are a given distance away from a given point. That definition is apparently incomplete.


[Edited by - Way Walker on December 1, 2010 7:05:05 PM]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anti-proof by demonstration:

construct physical circle, diameter = x.
construct physical square over circle, length of side = x.

Wrap string around physical square exactly once. Cut to length.
Wrap string around physical circle exactly once. Cut to length.

Compare strings.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by JoeCooper
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter what the flaw in it is; the important thing is that it only looks like there isn't a flaw because through our limited perception it looks circleish.


That makes more sense to me if I never took calculus. I spent 3 years learning that little rectangles = curved lines.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by samoth
You wouldn't want to doubt the guys who built the Great Pyramid... [snip] ...and an awful lot of slave hands.

Apparently the pyramids were not built by slaves at all. Have a look at the Who Built the Pyramids? section here.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by ChurchSkiz
Quote:
Original post by JoeCooper
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter what the flaw in it is; the important thing is that it only looks like there isn't a flaw because through our limited perception it looks circleish.


That makes more sense to me if I never took calculus. I spent 3 years learning that little rectangles = curved lines.


no you didn't. You learned that little rectangles approximate areas involving curved lines. At least I hope that's what you learned.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by szecs

Remove more corners, perimeter is still 4.



That's the trick. The relation between the side and diagonal of a square isn't rational.
The act of removing the corners implies reducing the perimeter of the resulting shape.

Could anyone draw the formula that represents "removing the corners" from the square so we can appreciate the resulting error?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Way Walker
But these criticisms also apply to circumscribing regular polygons


That was the exact previous thing I went into. There isn't a correct method. Just approximations of varying usefulness. Pi = 4 isn't normally going to be a useful figure.

As for the shape, we can plain see that its area does approach that of a circle (implying the familiar Pi value) even if the perimeter is artificially inflated.

With Pi=4, you can't use its diameter to find its area. As long as we agree that Pi is supposed to relate the diameter and area, that's a problem.

But if you work it the other direction, you actually can find Pi from its area.

Quote:
Also, because "I said so" isn't a satisfying mathematical explanation.


Excuse me, but that's not what I said.

[Edited by - JoeCooper on December 2, 2010 1:35:29 AM]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by JoeCooper
Quote:
Original post by Way Walker
But these criticisms also apply to circumscribing regular polygons


That was the exact previous thing I went into.

Quote:
Also, because "I said so" isn't a satisfying mathematical explanation.


Excuse me?

I said that if you try to calculate it through the area, you get a radically different figure, and while using the regular polygon method also isn't perfect, the difference is dramatically smaller to the point of being useful.


I didn't mean to single out your comment since it was a comment on the whole discussion (including the linked thread) and why I included another post there as well. A lot of the explanations of why it doesn't work are no more insightful than "I said so". For example, in the linked discussion the explanations are, "you cannot interchange limits and lengths," and, "Suppose that X(n) is a sequence of objects that have a meaningful limit X. If all of hte X(n) have a property P, then [...] most people will accept that the limit must have P without thinking about." The first isn't entirely true because you can if you have the right limiting sequence (e.g. regular polygons in this case) and the second gives no reason as to why it doesn't work in this case while there are still "numerous theorems in maths that follow this pattern." Basically, it doesn't work because they said so.

Students (and others) new to a particular area of math sometimes get the right answer by doing something wrong or even completely irrelevant. Their answer is quantifiably correct (there being literally 0 difference between their answer and the correct answer), but there's not necessarily any reason it should be or that it will be anywhere near correct in other cases. Why do regular polygons produce a better result? Or is it just chance, like a coder who makes a working program by randomly copy-and-pasting code from the internet? Or is it just that it was on the internet so it must be true?

I think it's related to the fact that the limiting set really is a circle so it will be pi and the derivative of the limiting set exists everywhere, but the limit of the derivative is undefined everywhere. Maybe the full explanation requires a deeper knowledge of fractals than one can give in a single post to a technical but still general audience?

And you're excused. [smile]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The "because I said so" bit has me thinking.

There are a lot of assumptions going into this.

The whole exercise in question (in the OP's pic) is founded on the assumptio that the circle has less perimeter than the square, but we can do this reducing trick so that its shape approaches that of a circle.

But we can see immediately from the first step that the perimeter is artificially maintained - and I'd posit that this is no different than drawing horns onto the side of the square - therefore it doesn't meet it's own goal; its perimeter is not reduced.

We can also see that we're actually adding a lot of angles.

So as far as the parimeter is concerned, the reduction trick is not actually being done on the property in question.

Does that work?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Having fun?

Actually it's an interesting problem, because as pointed out:
Quote:
However, the construction in the OP still seems to fulfill the usual definition of a circle: all the points in a plane that are a given distance away from a given point. That definition is apparently incomplete.


It has to do something with fractal geometry, I believe you can make a object that looks like a line segment (infinitely thin), yet it can have any arbitrary length, even infinite.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by szecs
Having fun?


Yessir.

Quote:
the construction in the OP still seems to fulfill the usual definition of a circle: all the points in a plane that are a given distance away from a given point


Maybe that's not the case. Again, if you just zoom in, it's stair-steps, it's not a circle. The shape on your screen isn't really a circle either, given that it's also painted onto such a grid.

The regular polygon isn't a circle either, and I think we can all agree on that.

Thing is, the regular polygon is designed to reduce its perimeter toward that of a circle while this, isn't.

The whole point of reducing is to approximate so that the figure's properties approach a circle, and this one fails because it doesn't attempt to do this in whole. It attempts to reduce one property, its area, while inflating the other, as a joke. If you look at the other property, you do get Pi, which is consistent with its circleish appearance.

[Edited by - JoeCooper on December 2, 2010 3:29:47 AM]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So far, I havnt really seen any 'explanations' that go beyond 'but the polygon method confirms to our expectations but this one does not!'

How are they different? Both reduce the distance between the curve and the circle arbitrarily. Both are equally piecewise linear.

I think the fundamental difference is that the one arbitrarily closely approximates the tangent of the circle while the other does not. A sufficiently fractal curve could have any length while satisfying the above properties, while one with constraints on its tangent direction could not.

Still not a proof, but I think its a correct intuition.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Eelco
How are they different? Both reduce the distance between the curve and the circle arbitrarily. Both are equally piecewise linear.


They're different because it doesn't reduce the perimeter, and the perimeter is what we're measuring. Therefore nothing measured is being reduced. Nothing at all. We might as well not do any reduction, just leave it as a square, and refute any complaints with "I don't see any 'explainations' other than a square isn't a circle."

It's the area that's reduced, so you're only using the reduction method if you measure that.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by JoeCooper
Quote:
Original post by Eelco
How are they different? Both reduce the distance between the curve and the circle arbitrarily. Both are equally piecewise linear.


They're different because it doesn't reduce the perimeter, and the perimeter is what we're measuring. No reducing is done. The figure's perimeter isn't changed at all. You might as well not change the figure.

The area is, and if you measure that, you'll find it most certainly does give us Pi.


Is that a valid distinction though? We can conceive of perimeters that do change, yet do not converge to the correct value; say, a grid outline on one side and a polyhedron on the other, or a more subtle instance of such a curve. Just because it changes, doesnt make it right, nor does the fact that it doesnt change tell you anything, without a preconceived notion of the quantity you are trying to figure out.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We do have preconceived notions, assumptions and specifications, which is perfectly OK and in fact mandatory. If we can't agree on what a circle is and what Pi is supposed to do, than we might as well skip the diagrams, make up numbers and call it a day.

This approach is only being questioned because it looks like the reduction approach. Since the perimeter is not reduced, it is not the reduction approach, and is therefore one of an infinite number of totally random activities that also don't do anything relevant or useful, like watching Stargate. Your arguments are equally valid in support of me watching Stargate, counting the minutes, adding a break to refill my coffee, dividing it by 9 and calling it Pi; I can't tell that this is the wrong approach unless I have some idea of what I'm looking for.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We know the circle has Pi*diameter circumference and Pi*(0.5*diameter)^2 area.

The reduced square will always have an area greater than the circle's, plus it will always have a circumference of 4*diameter (also greater than the circle's).

If we take the points of the reduce square which are touching the circle's edge, and join those points into a polygon, then that polygon will always have an area and circumference less than the circle's.

One gives us maximum values, the other minimum values. Pi is somewhere between the two.
[edit]Another way to realise that this reduce square thingy is obviously going to have a large circumference is to take the idea to the extreme... Imagine a circle, then pick a point on it and travel around clockwise. You travel along in infinitely small steps, at each step, you move the edge inwards and outwards, creating a bump of an infinitely small distance. We just added an infinite number of bumps to the edge, which have a greater than zero length... What's the new circumference? Is 1/infinity * infinity equal to 1? If so, the new circumference is... ~Pi*Diameter+1??

[Edited by - Hodgman on December 2, 2010 8:37:03 AM]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0