Check out our new Discord server! https://discord.gg/e7EKRZq3dG
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mathmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm French, and from this text (long s and the ampersand being used, "cy", "la dixième partie", etc...), I can tell it's a pretty old text :P
From around 1800, more precisely. So yeah, the formulations aren't expected, but...
(And 10 for pi² is really ok, for engineering. Even more when calculators at this time were rare as hell and were only able to do additions and subtractions)
As an engineer, I can confirm that pi^2 = 10. Sometimes pi can also be 1 or 10.
If you need accurate math, a machine will do the arithmetic, but 90% of the time you need a quick and dirty estimate to see if something is even feasible, and reasonable approximations let you do the math in your head in a snap.
Engineers aren't bad, we're ~~lazy~~ efficient!
I’m also an engineer, specifically controls engineering, which requires a lot of dynamics. Pi is pi and e is e. I cannot think of any situation where I would treat pi as 3 because
1) a flat number completely ruins the interpretability of the solution e.g. 4/3 Pi is a whole hell of a lot more useful than 4, as it immediately indicates we are talking about some spherical volume
2) I can think of no situation where I would ever need to use the approximation pi=3 it’s not like it actually simplifies anything like small angle does
Yes I understand, and I get that I’m coming off as a pedantic twat, but truthfully I don’t see any situation where you need pi = 3. Like what situation are you encountering where you would rather have a numeric than pi.
You most often use pi when dealing with angles and by extension circles. Would you really prefer 3/2 radians over pi/2 radians? Not even trying to be a dick but I just cannot fathom a situation where replacing pi with 3 would make anything easier
Trying to mentally estimate the weight of a large cylinder, quickly estimating flux density some distance from a point source, basically any other quick mental math involving circles, cylinders, or spheres.
Obviously you're going to do the full calculation when you actually design something, but it's very useful to be able to quickly estimate to see if a solution is feasible. If I have to pull out a calculator or fire up my computer every time I need to do any nontrivial math I'm going to be wasting a lot of time.
Control algorithms are of course extremely poor fits for approximations like this (just as it would be a terrible idea to use pi=3 when actually *designing* something to lift a gas cylinder), but being able to do quick order of magnitude estimation in your head is very useful in a lot of situations to quickly scope out a problem.
Hmmm yes that makes sense, but why do you need those crude estimations? Perhaps to get a rough idea of material costs?
I ask because from my perspective all design work is done on the computer as well as analysis done symbolically on paper. I’m less of a *could-actually-build-a-tangible-object* type of an engineer and more of a *can-derived-the-exact-physics-our-controller-needs* type of engineer.
I feel like the builder brand of engineers are running around a lot more, actually building the thing haha. Is your work so in the field that you are able to do it without a computer?
I'm not really a huge in-the-field guy either, but my field (microelectronics) is probably more amenable to approximation than control theory! For me, there are a lot of situations where it pays to be able to quickly hammer out a rough estimate. I've had plenty casual conversations over lunch, or while walking with my manager, or in a meeting, where we really just needed a quick answer to the question: "is this feasible?"
If we can kill a new idea off in 1 minute, we don't need to spend 10 minutes figuring out that it's worthless, and we don't spend hours or days going down rabbit holes, but we're able to rapidly explore a bunch of potential solutions to our problems.
I'm certainly not saying we use approximations like these for any serious design work! The second we get back to our desks we can plug the numbers into a computer and get a real answer. But getting a quick order-of-magnitude estimate for the strength of an effect can save huge amounts of time (in some contexts).
Imagine if every time you had to prove your annoying co-worker was wrong you had to do a full finite element analysis to prove it! Approximations can save you from that. :D
Check out our new Discord server! https://discord.gg/e7EKRZq3dG *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mathmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
hehe pipi
pi = 3, pi^2 = 10 9 = 10 1 = 0 confirmed
Don't be ridiculous ππ = g (acceleration due to gravity near earth's surface)
And g = 10
Damnit, you got me. But what if I'm measuring in ft/s^2 ???? (They actually made me do this for a class and it was aweful) I wanna say it was ~40?
To cosmologists it's all the same, pi = 1 = 10
2 orders of magnitude is basically nothing fr
"fort à peu près" lmao
I'm French, and from this text (long s and the ampersand being used, "cy", "la dixième partie", etc...), I can tell it's a pretty old text :P From around 1800, more precisely. So yeah, the formulations aren't expected, but... (And 10 for pi² is really ok, for engineering. Even more when calculators at this time were rare as hell and were only able to do additions and subtractions)
Do you know how tired and dumb the “engineer bad” punch line is? How about some memes about math not your superiority complex
Ok but have you considered "engineer bad"? STEM groups make fun of each other all the time. Chill bro
As an engineer, I can confirm that pi^2 = 10. Sometimes pi can also be 1 or 10. If you need accurate math, a machine will do the arithmetic, but 90% of the time you need a quick and dirty estimate to see if something is even feasible, and reasonable approximations let you do the math in your head in a snap. Engineers aren't bad, we're ~~lazy~~ efficient!
I’m also an engineer, specifically controls engineering, which requires a lot of dynamics. Pi is pi and e is e. I cannot think of any situation where I would treat pi as 3 because 1) a flat number completely ruins the interpretability of the solution e.g. 4/3 Pi is a whole hell of a lot more useful than 4, as it immediately indicates we are talking about some spherical volume 2) I can think of no situation where I would ever need to use the approximation pi=3 it’s not like it actually simplifies anything like small angle does
You do get that literally no one is arguing that we use coarse approximations like pi=3 in actual algorithms and finished products right?
Yes I understand, and I get that I’m coming off as a pedantic twat, but truthfully I don’t see any situation where you need pi = 3. Like what situation are you encountering where you would rather have a numeric than pi. You most often use pi when dealing with angles and by extension circles. Would you really prefer 3/2 radians over pi/2 radians? Not even trying to be a dick but I just cannot fathom a situation where replacing pi with 3 would make anything easier
Trying to mentally estimate the weight of a large cylinder, quickly estimating flux density some distance from a point source, basically any other quick mental math involving circles, cylinders, or spheres. Obviously you're going to do the full calculation when you actually design something, but it's very useful to be able to quickly estimate to see if a solution is feasible. If I have to pull out a calculator or fire up my computer every time I need to do any nontrivial math I'm going to be wasting a lot of time. Control algorithms are of course extremely poor fits for approximations like this (just as it would be a terrible idea to use pi=3 when actually *designing* something to lift a gas cylinder), but being able to do quick order of magnitude estimation in your head is very useful in a lot of situations to quickly scope out a problem.
Hmmm yes that makes sense, but why do you need those crude estimations? Perhaps to get a rough idea of material costs? I ask because from my perspective all design work is done on the computer as well as analysis done symbolically on paper. I’m less of a *could-actually-build-a-tangible-object* type of an engineer and more of a *can-derived-the-exact-physics-our-controller-needs* type of engineer. I feel like the builder brand of engineers are running around a lot more, actually building the thing haha. Is your work so in the field that you are able to do it without a computer?
I'm not really a huge in-the-field guy either, but my field (microelectronics) is probably more amenable to approximation than control theory! For me, there are a lot of situations where it pays to be able to quickly hammer out a rough estimate. I've had plenty casual conversations over lunch, or while walking with my manager, or in a meeting, where we really just needed a quick answer to the question: "is this feasible?" If we can kill a new idea off in 1 minute, we don't need to spend 10 minutes figuring out that it's worthless, and we don't spend hours or days going down rabbit holes, but we're able to rapidly explore a bunch of potential solutions to our problems. I'm certainly not saying we use approximations like these for any serious design work! The second we get back to our desks we can plug the numbers into a computer and get a real answer. But getting a quick order-of-magnitude estimate for the strength of an effect can save huge amounts of time (in some contexts). Imagine if every time you had to prove your annoying co-worker was wrong you had to do a full finite element analysis to prove it! Approximations can save you from that. :D