this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2026
541 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
85297 readers
4389 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Username checks out.
Let's start here:
310^0 + 110^-1 + 410^-2 =
31 + 1*.1 + 4*.01 =
3.14
That's uhh... not pi. The only way to do pi that way is to extend it infinitely.
Also, what you're using is called scientific notation, but it's still in decimal format, i.e. base~10~
[Edit: just noticed you did say that was decimal notation; my bad).
Any base~X~ numeral system has X number of integers per digit.
A base~π~ numeral system would look like this: {0,1,2,[int(π-3)]}.
But that's not how set theory works. Since integers are by definition whole numbers and their inverse counterparts, it's impossible to have .141592654... of an integer. If you have {0,1,2,3}, that's base~4~; if you have {0,1,2,n}, that's still base~4~.
To put it another way, in any base~X~ system, (if it includes 0), X is the first two-digit number. That means π in base~π~ would be written as "10".
That means, if you wanted to make a base~π~ numeral system, in order to have a consistent interval between integers (without which, integers become meaningless), each numeral would have to represent (π/3).
So in base~π~:
[Edit: aaand I just noticed you did say base~π~(10) = base~10~(π); my bad again. I guess you weren't as wrong as I thought you were. Not bad for being too high for this...]
But that's still technically base~3~, it's just a wonky base~3~. And it would have no practical value. Also, the same thing can already be achieved in base~10~ using radians.
I guess if you really wanted to express radians as whole numbers, you could use base~π~, i.e.:
But again, that's still technically base~3~, and all it does is confuse people. Plus, if you want to express an angle as a whole number you can choose degrees or mills. The whole point of radians is to express it with reference to pi (as in, the arc corresponding to the length of the radius along the circumference)
It feels like it needs to redefine a unit, not a base, same as with degrees that are base 10 but units are different so π is whole. I'm not sure if counting in different units has much use compared to counting in different base from a number theoretical perspective
I think we're in agreement. I basically said there'd be no point unless for some reason you wanted to describe radians as whole numbers.
Otherwise, base~π~ doesn't make any sense, especially since there's no unambiguous way to define a constant interval between irrational integers (a contraction of terms, I know).
My main point was that there's no way to have a base~π~ numeral system, and even if you could it would have next to no practical value.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-integer_base_of_numeration
Well waddaya know...