Simple proof that the first digit of pi is 3

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I'm looking for some intuition for why does pi equal 3.1416... and not some other number.



I started with the first digit 3. What I've done so far is:



Assume a circle of diameter 1. Assume a square of side 1 touching the circle at four points. The perimeter of the square is 4. The circle lies inside the square and both the circle and the square are convex figures, so the length of the circle must be less than 4. Does this seem right?



Also, the circumference must be greater than 2 because 2 is the shortest journey (forward and return) along the diameter of the circle, so the circle must be longer than that.



Now I can't think of anything to show that the length of the circle must be greater than 3.



Also, it'd help if you could give intuition for the next few digits of pi.







share|cite|improve this question

















  • 2




    Try the regular hexagon inside the circle.
    – Michael
    2 days ago










  • @Michael Ok that'll do. I kept thinking of an equilateral triangle but the triangle would come out of the circle lol. Is there some logical method for the next few digits too?
    – Ryder Rude
    2 days ago











  • @RyderRude: Archimedes simply inscribed (and circumscribed) polygons with more and more sides. Do a web search for "archimedes pi" and you'll find lots of references.
    – Blue
    2 days ago














up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I'm looking for some intuition for why does pi equal 3.1416... and not some other number.



I started with the first digit 3. What I've done so far is:



Assume a circle of diameter 1. Assume a square of side 1 touching the circle at four points. The perimeter of the square is 4. The circle lies inside the square and both the circle and the square are convex figures, so the length of the circle must be less than 4. Does this seem right?



Also, the circumference must be greater than 2 because 2 is the shortest journey (forward and return) along the diameter of the circle, so the circle must be longer than that.



Now I can't think of anything to show that the length of the circle must be greater than 3.



Also, it'd help if you could give intuition for the next few digits of pi.







share|cite|improve this question

















  • 2




    Try the regular hexagon inside the circle.
    – Michael
    2 days ago










  • @Michael Ok that'll do. I kept thinking of an equilateral triangle but the triangle would come out of the circle lol. Is there some logical method for the next few digits too?
    – Ryder Rude
    2 days ago











  • @RyderRude: Archimedes simply inscribed (and circumscribed) polygons with more and more sides. Do a web search for "archimedes pi" and you'll find lots of references.
    – Blue
    2 days ago












up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











I'm looking for some intuition for why does pi equal 3.1416... and not some other number.



I started with the first digit 3. What I've done so far is:



Assume a circle of diameter 1. Assume a square of side 1 touching the circle at four points. The perimeter of the square is 4. The circle lies inside the square and both the circle and the square are convex figures, so the length of the circle must be less than 4. Does this seem right?



Also, the circumference must be greater than 2 because 2 is the shortest journey (forward and return) along the diameter of the circle, so the circle must be longer than that.



Now I can't think of anything to show that the length of the circle must be greater than 3.



Also, it'd help if you could give intuition for the next few digits of pi.







share|cite|improve this question













I'm looking for some intuition for why does pi equal 3.1416... and not some other number.



I started with the first digit 3. What I've done so far is:



Assume a circle of diameter 1. Assume a square of side 1 touching the circle at four points. The perimeter of the square is 4. The circle lies inside the square and both the circle and the square are convex figures, so the length of the circle must be less than 4. Does this seem right?



Also, the circumference must be greater than 2 because 2 is the shortest journey (forward and return) along the diameter of the circle, so the circle must be longer than that.



Now I can't think of anything to show that the length of the circle must be greater than 3.



Also, it'd help if you could give intuition for the next few digits of pi.









share|cite|improve this question












share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 2 days ago
























asked 2 days ago









Ryder Rude

348110




348110







  • 2




    Try the regular hexagon inside the circle.
    – Michael
    2 days ago










  • @Michael Ok that'll do. I kept thinking of an equilateral triangle but the triangle would come out of the circle lol. Is there some logical method for the next few digits too?
    – Ryder Rude
    2 days ago











  • @RyderRude: Archimedes simply inscribed (and circumscribed) polygons with more and more sides. Do a web search for "archimedes pi" and you'll find lots of references.
    – Blue
    2 days ago












  • 2




    Try the regular hexagon inside the circle.
    – Michael
    2 days ago










  • @Michael Ok that'll do. I kept thinking of an equilateral triangle but the triangle would come out of the circle lol. Is there some logical method for the next few digits too?
    – Ryder Rude
    2 days ago











  • @RyderRude: Archimedes simply inscribed (and circumscribed) polygons with more and more sides. Do a web search for "archimedes pi" and you'll find lots of references.
    – Blue
    2 days ago







2




2




Try the regular hexagon inside the circle.
– Michael
2 days ago




Try the regular hexagon inside the circle.
– Michael
2 days ago












@Michael Ok that'll do. I kept thinking of an equilateral triangle but the triangle would come out of the circle lol. Is there some logical method for the next few digits too?
– Ryder Rude
2 days ago





@Michael Ok that'll do. I kept thinking of an equilateral triangle but the triangle would come out of the circle lol. Is there some logical method for the next few digits too?
– Ryder Rude
2 days ago













@RyderRude: Archimedes simply inscribed (and circumscribed) polygons with more and more sides. Do a web search for "archimedes pi" and you'll find lots of references.
– Blue
2 days ago




@RyderRude: Archimedes simply inscribed (and circumscribed) polygons with more and more sides. Do a web search for "archimedes pi" and you'll find lots of references.
– Blue
2 days ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote













enter image description here



There is Archimedes method to find the approximation of $pi$ by determining the length of the perimeter of a polygon inscribed with in a circle and the perimeter of a polygon circumscribed outside a circle $($which is greater than the circumference$)$. The value of $pi$ lies between those two length. This might be helpful.






share|cite|improve this answer




























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    If you know a straight line is the shortest distance between two points this is an excellent way to produce lower bounds for $pi$. Archimedes used this approach to approximate $pi$ using polygons with $2^ncdot 3$ sides. You can compute the side lengths of the polygons using the Pythagorean theorem.



    I find the upper bound more problematic. You are claiming that any path between two points of a circle that stays outside the circle is longer than the path following the circle. That seems obvious, but I don't see an easy way to prove it. If you believe this the statement that the circle is shorter than the square is sufficient to show the first digit of $pi$ is $3$. As Archimedes did, you can get a tighter upper bound by using circumscribing polygons with more sides.



    There are many techniques for approximating $pi$. The Archimedes technique converges rather slowly. There are many more that converge more quickly, with each having a proof that they actually converge to $pi$. Whether any of them satisfies your definition of intuitive is for you to assess.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • The upper bound arising from circumscribing regular polygons becomes obvious if you consider area rather than arc-length.
      – Lord Shark the Unknown
      2 days ago










    Your Answer




    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );








     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2871690%2fsimple-proof-that-the-first-digit-of-pi-is-3%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest






























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    1
    down vote













    enter image description here



    There is Archimedes method to find the approximation of $pi$ by determining the length of the perimeter of a polygon inscribed with in a circle and the perimeter of a polygon circumscribed outside a circle $($which is greater than the circumference$)$. The value of $pi$ lies between those two length. This might be helpful.






    share|cite|improve this answer

























      up vote
      1
      down vote













      enter image description here



      There is Archimedes method to find the approximation of $pi$ by determining the length of the perimeter of a polygon inscribed with in a circle and the perimeter of a polygon circumscribed outside a circle $($which is greater than the circumference$)$. The value of $pi$ lies between those two length. This might be helpful.






      share|cite|improve this answer























        up vote
        1
        down vote










        up vote
        1
        down vote









        enter image description here



        There is Archimedes method to find the approximation of $pi$ by determining the length of the perimeter of a polygon inscribed with in a circle and the perimeter of a polygon circumscribed outside a circle $($which is greater than the circumference$)$. The value of $pi$ lies between those two length. This might be helpful.






        share|cite|improve this answer













        enter image description here



        There is Archimedes method to find the approximation of $pi$ by determining the length of the perimeter of a polygon inscribed with in a circle and the perimeter of a polygon circumscribed outside a circle $($which is greater than the circumference$)$. The value of $pi$ lies between those two length. This might be helpful.







        share|cite|improve this answer













        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer











        answered 2 days ago









        Key Flex

        3,663422




        3,663422




















            up vote
            0
            down vote













            If you know a straight line is the shortest distance between two points this is an excellent way to produce lower bounds for $pi$. Archimedes used this approach to approximate $pi$ using polygons with $2^ncdot 3$ sides. You can compute the side lengths of the polygons using the Pythagorean theorem.



            I find the upper bound more problematic. You are claiming that any path between two points of a circle that stays outside the circle is longer than the path following the circle. That seems obvious, but I don't see an easy way to prove it. If you believe this the statement that the circle is shorter than the square is sufficient to show the first digit of $pi$ is $3$. As Archimedes did, you can get a tighter upper bound by using circumscribing polygons with more sides.



            There are many techniques for approximating $pi$. The Archimedes technique converges rather slowly. There are many more that converge more quickly, with each having a proof that they actually converge to $pi$. Whether any of them satisfies your definition of intuitive is for you to assess.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • The upper bound arising from circumscribing regular polygons becomes obvious if you consider area rather than arc-length.
              – Lord Shark the Unknown
              2 days ago














            up vote
            0
            down vote













            If you know a straight line is the shortest distance between two points this is an excellent way to produce lower bounds for $pi$. Archimedes used this approach to approximate $pi$ using polygons with $2^ncdot 3$ sides. You can compute the side lengths of the polygons using the Pythagorean theorem.



            I find the upper bound more problematic. You are claiming that any path between two points of a circle that stays outside the circle is longer than the path following the circle. That seems obvious, but I don't see an easy way to prove it. If you believe this the statement that the circle is shorter than the square is sufficient to show the first digit of $pi$ is $3$. As Archimedes did, you can get a tighter upper bound by using circumscribing polygons with more sides.



            There are many techniques for approximating $pi$. The Archimedes technique converges rather slowly. There are many more that converge more quickly, with each having a proof that they actually converge to $pi$. Whether any of them satisfies your definition of intuitive is for you to assess.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • The upper bound arising from circumscribing regular polygons becomes obvious if you consider area rather than arc-length.
              – Lord Shark the Unknown
              2 days ago












            up vote
            0
            down vote










            up vote
            0
            down vote









            If you know a straight line is the shortest distance between two points this is an excellent way to produce lower bounds for $pi$. Archimedes used this approach to approximate $pi$ using polygons with $2^ncdot 3$ sides. You can compute the side lengths of the polygons using the Pythagorean theorem.



            I find the upper bound more problematic. You are claiming that any path between two points of a circle that stays outside the circle is longer than the path following the circle. That seems obvious, but I don't see an easy way to prove it. If you believe this the statement that the circle is shorter than the square is sufficient to show the first digit of $pi$ is $3$. As Archimedes did, you can get a tighter upper bound by using circumscribing polygons with more sides.



            There are many techniques for approximating $pi$. The Archimedes technique converges rather slowly. There are many more that converge more quickly, with each having a proof that they actually converge to $pi$. Whether any of them satisfies your definition of intuitive is for you to assess.






            share|cite|improve this answer













            If you know a straight line is the shortest distance between two points this is an excellent way to produce lower bounds for $pi$. Archimedes used this approach to approximate $pi$ using polygons with $2^ncdot 3$ sides. You can compute the side lengths of the polygons using the Pythagorean theorem.



            I find the upper bound more problematic. You are claiming that any path between two points of a circle that stays outside the circle is longer than the path following the circle. That seems obvious, but I don't see an easy way to prove it. If you believe this the statement that the circle is shorter than the square is sufficient to show the first digit of $pi$ is $3$. As Archimedes did, you can get a tighter upper bound by using circumscribing polygons with more sides.



            There are many techniques for approximating $pi$. The Archimedes technique converges rather slowly. There are many more that converge more quickly, with each having a proof that they actually converge to $pi$. Whether any of them satisfies your definition of intuitive is for you to assess.







            share|cite|improve this answer













            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer











            answered 2 days ago









            Ross Millikan

            275k21184350




            275k21184350











            • The upper bound arising from circumscribing regular polygons becomes obvious if you consider area rather than arc-length.
              – Lord Shark the Unknown
              2 days ago
















            • The upper bound arising from circumscribing regular polygons becomes obvious if you consider area rather than arc-length.
              – Lord Shark the Unknown
              2 days ago















            The upper bound arising from circumscribing regular polygons becomes obvious if you consider area rather than arc-length.
            – Lord Shark the Unknown
            2 days ago




            The upper bound arising from circumscribing regular polygons becomes obvious if you consider area rather than arc-length.
            – Lord Shark the Unknown
            2 days ago












             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


























             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2871690%2fsimple-proof-that-the-first-digit-of-pi-is-3%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest













































































            Comments

            Popular posts from this blog

            What is the equation of a 3D cone with generalised tilt?

            Relationship between determinant of matrix and determinant of adjoint?

            Color the edges and diagonals of a regular polygon