sqrt((e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3))= 3.1415932235... or ---- 1/(((e^6)/(pi^5))-1) = 3.1415920835...

3.1415932235857142043046233744896247010613124302570133810522481987395535359444161389937382706863183574...
3.1415920835939756900037537697591231827972490365729352503570427152871946951610718594628267326022276173...

The difference between the two then divide by 2 and add to the second entry above of <pi and this will =
3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
A much closer approximation to pi (12 correct digits of pi).
Also curious if you divide the difference by 2, as above but subtract it from the first larger entry
from above the results are the same---
3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...

Dan

On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 5:54:39 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> sqrt((e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3))= 3.1415932235... or ---- 1/(((e^6)/(pi^5))-1) = 3.1415920835...
>
> 3.1415932235857142043046233744896247010613124302570133810522481987395535359444161389937382706863183574...
> 3.1415920835939756900037537697591231827972490365729352503570427152871946951610718594628267326022276173...
>
> The difference between the two then divide by 2 and add to the second entry above of <pi and this will =
> 3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
> A much closer approximation to pi (12 correct digits of pi).
> Also curious if you divide the difference by 2, as above but subtract it from the first larger entry
> from above the results are the same---
> 3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
>
> Dan
Correction To the above--
(e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3)= 3.1415932235b (no sqrt.)

On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:44:31 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 5:54:39 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> > sqrt((e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3))= 3.1415932235... or ---- 1/(((e^6)/(pi^5))-1) = 3.1415920835...
> >
> > 3.1415932235857142043046233744896247010613124302570133810522481987395535359444161389937382706863183574...
> > 3.1415920835939756900037537697591231827972490365729352503570427152871946951610718594628267326022276173...
> >
> > The difference between the two then divide by 2 and add to the second entry above of <pi and this will =
> > 3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
> > A much closer approximation to pi (12 correct digits of pi).
> > Also curious if you divide the difference by 2, as above but subtract it from the first larger entry
> > from above the results are the same---
> > 3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
> >
> > Dan
> Correction To the above--
> (e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3)= 3.1415932235b (no sqrt.)
Enter this in Wolfram Alpha --- (e^6 - pi^5)/pi^3 =>pi

$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{$¨´¨´½^}{$^}`}§½^¨´¨´½@[{½
§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}{$^}`}§½^[{½]$½@$$$^}`}§½^¨´$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{$¨´¨´½^}{$^}`}§½^¨´¨´½@[{½
§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}{$^}`}§½^[{½]$½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´$$^}`}§½^¨´§
½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½[{½]$½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´$$^}`}§½^¨´§
½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{¨´¨´½@[{½
{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½@[{½@[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$§´^§]$$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´$^}`}§½^¨´¨´½@[{½@[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}{$^}`}§½^¨´¨´½^§]${½]{$§´^§]$$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´$$^}`}§½^¨´§
½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{[{½]{^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{$¨´¨´½^}{$^}`}§½^¨´¨´½@[{½
§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}{$^}`}§½^[{½]$½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´$$^}`}§½^¨´§
½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½[{½]$½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´$$^}`}§½^¨´§
½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{¨´¨´½@[{½
{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½@[{½@[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$§´^§]$$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´$^}`}§½^¨´¨´½@[{½@[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}{$^}`}§½^¨´¨´½^§]${½]{$§´^§]$$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´$$^}`}§½^¨´§
½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{{½$$$^}`}§½^¨
½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½[{½]$½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´$$^}`}§½^¨´§
½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{¨´¨´½@[{½
{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{$¨´¨´½^}{$^}`}§½^¨´¨´½@[{½
§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}{$^}`}§½^[{½]$½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´$$^}`}§½^¨´§
½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½[{½]$½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´$$^}`}§½^¨´§
½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{¨´¨´½@[{½
{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½@[{½@[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$§´^§]$$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´$^}`}§½^¨´¨´½@[{½@[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}{$^}`}§½^¨´¨´½^§]${½]{$§´^§]$$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´$$^}`}§½^¨´§
½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´$$^}`}§½^¨´§
½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{[{½]{^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{$¨´¨´½^}{$^}`}§½^¨´¨´½@[{½
§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}{$^}`}§½^[{½]$½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´$$^}`}§½^¨´§
½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½[{½]$½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´$$^}`}§½^¨´§
½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{¨´¨´½@[{½
{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½@[{½@[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$§´^§]$$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´$^}`}§½^¨´¨´½@[{½@[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}{$^}`}§½^¨´¨´½^§]${½]{$§´^§]$$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´$$^}`}§½^¨´§
½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{{½$$$^}`}§½^¨
½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½[{½]$½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´$$^}`}§½^¨´§
½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{¨´¨´½@[{½
{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{$¨´¨´½^}{$^}`}§½^¨´¨´½@[{½
§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}{$^}`}§½^[{½]$½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´$$^}`}§½^¨´§
½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½[{½]$½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´$$^}`}§½^¨´§
½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{¨´¨´½@[{½
{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½@[{½@[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$§´^§]$$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´$^}`}§½^¨´¨´½@[{½@[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}{$^}`}§½^¨´¨´½^§]${½]{$§´^§]$$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½@[{½@[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$§´^§]$$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´$^}`}§½^¨´¨´½@[{½@[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}{$^}`}§½^¨´¨´½^§]${½]{$§´^§]$$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{$§´^§]${½]{$¨´¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{½]$½@[{½]{½¨´½^}\}\}`}§´^§$½@[{{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´$$^}`}§½^¨´§
½@[{½]{½@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´@[{½$$$^}`}§½^¨´[{½]{
djoyce099 kirjutas pühapäev, 30. mai 2021 kl 03:52:52 UTC+3:
> On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:44:31 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 5:54:39 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> > > sqrt((e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3))= 3.1415932235... or ---- 1/(((e^6)/(pi^5))-1) = 3.1415920835...
> > >
> > > 3.1415932235857142043046233744896247010613124302570133810522481987395535359444161389937382706863183574...
> > > 3.1415920835939756900037537697591231827972490365729352503570427152871946951610718594628267326022276173...
> > >
> > > The difference between the two then divide by 2 and add to the second entry above of <pi and this will =
> > > 3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
> > > A much closer approximation to pi (12 correct digits of pi).
> > > Also curious if you divide the difference by 2, as above but subtract it from the first larger entry
> > > from above the results are the same---
> > > 3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
> > >
> > > Dan
> > Correction To the above--
> > (e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3)= 3.1415932235b (no sqrt.)
> Enter this in Wolfram Alpha --- (e^6 - pi^5)/pi^3 =>pi

On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:52:52 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:44:31 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 5:54:39 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> > > sqrt((e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3))= 3.1415932235... or ---- 1/(((e^6)/(pi^5))-1) = 3.1415920835...
> > >
> > > 3.1415932235857142043046233744896247010613124302570133810522481987395535359444161389937382706863183574...
> > > 3.1415920835939756900037537697591231827972490365729352503570427152871946951610718594628267326022276173...
> > >
> > > The difference between the two then divide by 2 and add to the second entry above of <pi and this will =
> > > 3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
> > > A much closer approximation to pi (12 correct digits of pi).
> > > Also curious if you divide the difference by 2, as above but subtract it from the first larger entry
> > > from above the results are the same---
> > > 3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
> > >
> > > Dan
> > Correction To the above--
> > (e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3)= 3.1415932235b (no sqrt.)
> Enter this in Wolfram Alpha --- (e^6 - pi^5)/pi^3 =>pi

Who can come up with a closer relationship of the above of pi and e outside of the imaginary e^pi*i = -1

Dan

On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 8:54:35 AM UTC-7, djoyce099 wrote:
> On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:52:52 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:44:31 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> > > On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 5:54:39 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> > > > sqrt((e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3))= 3.1415932235... or ---- 1/(((e^6)/(pi^5))-1) = 3.1415920835...
> > > >
> > > > 3.1415932235857142043046233744896247010613124302570133810522481987395535359444161389937382706863183574...
> > > > 3.1415920835939756900037537697591231827972490365729352503570427152871946951610718594628267326022276173...
> > > >
> > > > The difference between the two then divide by 2 and add to the second entry above of <pi and this will =
> > > > 3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
> > > > A much closer approximation to pi (12 correct digits of pi).
> > > > Also curious if you divide the difference by 2, as above but subtract it from the first larger entry
> > > > from above the results are the same---
> > > > 3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
> > > >
> > > > Dan
> > > Correction To the above--
> > > (e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3)= 3.1415932235b (no sqrt.)
> > Enter this in Wolfram Alpha --- (e^6 - pi^5)/pi^3 =>pi
> Who can come up with a closer relationship of the above of pi and e outside of the imaginary e^pi*i = -1
>
> Dan

PI is a round closed curve... e is not...

Mitchell Raemsch

On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 2:40:00 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 8:54:35 AM UTC-7, djoyce099 wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:52:52 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> > > On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:44:31 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 5:54:39 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> > > > > sqrt((e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3))= 3.1415932235... or ---- 1/(((e^6)/(pi^5))-1) = 3.1415920835...
> > > > >
> > > > > 3.1415932235857142043046233744896247010613124302570133810522481987395535359444161389937382706863183574...
> > > > > 3.1415920835939756900037537697591231827972490365729352503570427152871946951610718594628267326022276173...
> > > > >
> > > > > The difference between the two then divide by 2 and add to the second entry above of <pi and this will =
> > > > > 3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
> > > > > A much closer approximation to pi (12 correct digits of pi).
> > > > > Also curious if you divide the difference by 2, as above but subtract it from the first larger entry
> > > > > from above the results are the same---
> > > > > 3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
> > > > >
> > > > > Dan
> > > > Correction To the above--
> > > > (e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3)= 3.1415932235b (no sqrt.)
> > > Enter this in Wolfram Alpha --- (e^6 - pi^5)/pi^3 =>pi
> > Who can come up with a closer relationship of the above of pi and e outside of the imaginary e^pi*i = -1
> >
> > Dan
> PI is a round closed curve... e is not...
>
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

Yeah, I know the difference, but that is not the question!
I am just looking for a closer relationship of what I found with ---
(e^6 - pi^5)/pi^3 =>pi (5.699592e-7 a > pi difference)
Using any or all of the 4 operators, +,-,/,^ and any integers along with pi and e in the equation to accomplish the challenge
above.

Dan

On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 3:32:16 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 2:40:00 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 8:54:35 AM UTC-7, djoyce099 wrote:
> > > On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:52:52 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:44:31 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 5:54:39 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> > > > > > sqrt((e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3))= 3.1415932235... or ---- 1/(((e^6)/(pi^5))-1) = 3.1415920835...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3.1415932235857142043046233744896247010613124302570133810522481987395535359444161389937382706863183574...
> > > > > > 3.1415920835939756900037537697591231827972490365729352503570427152871946951610718594628267326022276173...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The difference between the two then divide by 2 and add to the second entry above of <pi and this will =
> > > > > > 3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
> > > > > > A much closer approximation to pi (12 correct digits of pi).
> > > > > > Also curious if you divide the difference by 2, as above but subtract it from the first larger entry
> > > > > > from above the results are the same---
> > > > > > 3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dan
> > > > > Correction To the above--
> > > > > (e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3)= 3.1415932235b (no sqrt.)
> > > > Enter this in Wolfram Alpha --- (e^6 - pi^5)/pi^3 =>pi
> > > Who can come up with a closer relationship of the above of pi and e outside of the imaginary e^pi*i = -1
> > >
> > > Dan
> > PI is a round closed curve... e is not...
> >
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> Yeah, I know the difference, but that is not the question!
> I am just looking for a closer relationship of what I found with ---
> (e^6 - pi^5)/pi^3 =>pi (5.699592e-7 a > pi difference)
> Using any or all of the 4 operators, +,-,/,^ and any integers along with pi and e in the equation to accomplish the challenge
> above.
>
> Dan
1/(((e^6)/(pi^5))-1) =<pi (5.6999581e-7 a < pi difference) so (e^6 - pi^5)/pi^3 =>pi is the best so far.

On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 4:14:01 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 3:32:16 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 2:40:00 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 8:54:35 AM UTC-7, djoyce099 wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:52:52 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:44:31 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 5:54:39 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> > > > > > > sqrt((e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3))= 3.1415932235... or ---- 1/(((e^6)/(pi^5))-1) = 3.1415920835...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3.1415932235857142043046233744896247010613124302570133810522481987395535359444161389937382706863183574...
> > > > > > > 3.1415920835939756900037537697591231827972490365729352503570427152871946951610718594628267326022276173...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The difference between the two then divide by 2 and add to the second entry above of <pi and this will =
> > > > > > > 3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
> > > > > > > A much closer approximation to pi (12 correct digits of pi).
> > > > > > > Also curious if you divide the difference by 2, as above but subtract it from the first larger entry
> > > > > > > from above the results are the same---
> > > > > > > 3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dan
> > > > > > Correction To the above--
> > > > > > (e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3)= 3.1415932235b (no sqrt.)
> > > > > Enter this in Wolfram Alpha --- (e^6 - pi^5)/pi^3 =>pi
> > > > Who can come up with a closer relationship of the above of pi and e outside of the imaginary e^pi*i = -1
> > > >
> > > > Dan
> > > PI is a round closed curve... e is not...
> > >
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > Yeah, I know the difference, but that is not the question!
> > I am just looking for a closer relationship of what I found with ---
> > (e^6 - pi^5)/pi^3 =>pi (5.699592e-7 a > pi difference)
> > Using any or all of the 4 operators, +,-,/,^ and any integers along with pi and e in the equation to accomplish the challenge
> > above.
> >
> > Dan
> 1/(((e^6)/(pi^5))-1) =<pi (5.6999581e-7 a < pi difference) so (e^6 - pi^5)/pi^3 =>pi is the best so far.

Okay, try this -- n=(pi +1)*(pi^4) then e^(in(n)) = n
I know, in(n) is not an integer but close to 6.
(n) is transcendental according to Wolfram alpha.
Dan

djoyce099 wrote:
> On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:52:52 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:44:31 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
>>> On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 5:54:39 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
>>>> sqrt((e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3))= 3.1415932235... or ---- 1/(((e^6)/(pi^5))-1) = 3.1415920835...
>>>>
>>>> 3.1415932235857142043046233744896247010613124302570133810522481987395535359444161389937382706863183574...
>>>> 3.1415920835939756900037537697591231827972490365729352503570427152871946951610718594628267326022276173...
>>>>
>>>> The difference between the two then divide by 2 and add to the second entry above of <pi and this will =
>>>> 3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
>>>> A much closer approximation to pi (12 correct digits of pi).
>>>> Also curious if you divide the difference by 2, as above but subtract it from the first larger entry
>>>> from above the results are the same---
>>>> 3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>> Correction To the above--
>>> (e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3)= 3.1415932235b (no sqrt.)
>> Enter this in Wolfram Alpha --- (e^6 - pi^5)/pi^3 =>pi
>
> Who can come up with a closer relationship of the above of pi and e outside of the imaginary e^pi*i = -1
>
> Dan
>

Are you looking for algebraic connections? If not, they are ten a
penny. E.g. log(e) = -cos(pi).

--
Just as 'beautiful' points the way for aesthetics and 'good' for ethics,
so do words like 'true' for logic. All sciences have truth as their
goal; but logic is also concerned with it in a quite different way:
logic has much the same relation to truth as physics has to weight or
heat. Frege in 'Thoughts' (Der Gedanke)

djoyce099 wrote:
> On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:52:52 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:44:31 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
>>> On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 5:54:39 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
>>>> sqrt((e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3))= 3.1415932235... or ---- 1/(((e^6)/(pi^5))-1) = 3.1415920835...
>>>>
>>>> 3.1415932235857142043046233744896247010613124302570133810522481987395535359444161389937382706863183574...
>>>> 3.1415920835939756900037537697591231827972490365729352503570427152871946951610718594628267326022276173...
>>>>
>>>> The difference between the two then divide by 2 and add to the second entry above of <pi and this will =
>>>> 3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
>>>> A much closer approximation to pi (12 correct digits of pi).
>>>> Also curious if you divide the difference by 2, as above but subtract it from the first larger entry
>>>> from above the results are the same---
>>>> 3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>> Correction To the above--
>>> (e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3)= 3.1415932235b (no sqrt.)
>> Enter this in Wolfram Alpha --- (e^6 - pi^5)/pi^3 =>pi
>
> Who can come up with a closer relationship of the above of pi and e outside of the imaginary e^pi*i = -1
>
> Dan
>

Are you familiar with Heegner numbers? See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heegner_number#Almost_integers_and_Ramanujan%27s_constant
for a formula showing that e^{pi sqrt 163} is perilously close to
640320^3 + 744.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heegner_number#Other_Heegner_numbers has
similar results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heegner_number#Class_2_numbers has some
non-Heegner numbers producing similar results.

--
Just as 'beautiful' points the way for aesthetics and 'good' for ethics,
so do words like 'true' for logic. All sciences have truth as their
goal; but logic is also concerned with it in a quite different way:
logic has much the same relation to truth as physics has to weight or
heat. Frege in 'Thoughts' (Der Gedanke)

djoyce099 wrote:
> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 4:14:01 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 3:32:16 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 2:40:00 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 8:54:35 AM UTC-7, djoyce099 wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:52:52 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:44:31 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 5:54:39 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
>>>>>>>> sqrt((e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3))= 3.1415932235... or ---- 1/(((e^6)/(pi^5))-1) = 3.1415920835...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3.1415932235857142043046233744896247010613124302570133810522481987395535359444161389937382706863183574...
>>>>>>>> 3.1415920835939756900037537697591231827972490365729352503570427152871946951610718594628267326022276173...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The difference between the two then divide by 2 and add to the second entry above of <pi and this will =
>>>>>>>> 3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
>>>>>>>> A much closer approximation to pi (12 correct digits of pi).
>>>>>>>> Also curious if you divide the difference by 2, as above but subtract it from the first larger entry
>>>>>>>> from above the results are the same---
>>>>>>>> 3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>> Correction To the above--
>>>>>>> (e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3)= 3.1415932235b (no sqrt.)
>>>>>> Enter this in Wolfram Alpha --- (e^6 - pi^5)/pi^3 =>pi
>>>>> Who can come up with a closer relationship of the above of pi and e outside of the imaginary e^pi*i = -1
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan
>>>> PI is a round closed curve... e is not...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>> Yeah, I know the difference, but that is not the question!
>>> I am just looking for a closer relationship of what I found with ---
>>> (e^6 - pi^5)/pi^3 =>pi (5.699592e-7 a > pi difference)
>>> Using any or all of the 4 operators, +,-,/,^ and any integers along with pi and e in the equation to accomplish the challenge
>>> above.
>>>
>>> Dan
>> 1/(((e^6)/(pi^5))-1) =<pi (5.6999581e-7 a < pi difference) so (e^6 - pi^5)/pi^3 =>pi is the best so far.
>
> Okay, try this -- n=(pi +1)*(pi^4) then e^(in(n)) = n

You mean log(n) or ln(n). Deja vu all over again.

> I know, in(n) is not an integer but close to 6.
> (n) is transcendental according to Wolfram alpha.
> Dan
>

--
Just as 'beautiful' points the way for aesthetics and 'good' for ethics,
so do words like 'true' for logic. All sciences have truth as their
goal; but logic is also concerned with it in a quite different way:
logic has much the same relation to truth as physics has to weight or
heat. Frege in 'Thoughts' (Der Gedanke)

On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 11:12:14 AM UTC-4, Peter wrote:
> djoyce099 wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 4:14:01 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> >> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 3:32:16 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 2:40:00 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 8:54:35 AM UTC-7, djoyce099 wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:52:52 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> >>>>>> On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:44:31 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 5:54:39 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> >>>>>>>> sqrt((e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3))= 3.1415932235... or ---- 1/(((e^6)/(pi^5))-1) = 3.1415920835...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 3.1415932235857142043046233744896247010613124302570133810522481987395535359444161389937382706863183574...
> >>>>>>>> 3.1415920835939756900037537697591231827972490365729352503570427152871946951610718594628267326022276173...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The difference between the two then divide by 2 and add to the second entry above of <pi and this will =
> >>>>>>>> 3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
> >>>>>>>> A much closer approximation to pi (12 correct digits of pi).
> >>>>>>>> Also curious if you divide the difference by 2, as above but subtract it from the first larger entry
> >>>>>>>> from above the results are the same---
> >>>>>>>> 3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Dan
> >>>>>>> Correction To the above--
> >>>>>>> (e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3)= 3.1415932235b (no sqrt.)
> >>>>>> Enter this in Wolfram Alpha --- (e^6 - pi^5)/pi^3 =>pi
> >>>>> Who can come up with a closer relationship of the above of pi and e outside of the imaginary e^pi*i = -1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dan
> >>>> PI is a round closed curve... e is not...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Mitchell Raemsch
> >>> Yeah, I know the difference, but that is not the question!
> >>> I am just looking for a closer relationship of what I found with ---
> >>> (e^6 - pi^5)/pi^3 =>pi (5.699592e-7 a > pi difference)
> >>> Using any or all of the 4 operators, +,-,/,^ and any integers along with pi and e in the equation to accomplish the challenge
> >>> above.
> >>>
> >>> Dan
> >> 1/(((e^6)/(pi^5))-1) =<pi (5.6999581e-7 a < pi difference) so (e^6 - pi^5)/pi^3 =>pi is the best so far.
> >
> > Okay, try this -- n=(pi +1)*(pi^4) then e^(in(n)) = n

That was dumb (e^(in(n)) = n). I can understand the confusion.

> You mean log(n) or ln(n). Deja vu all over again.

You are right, it should be --- In(n)

> > I know, in(n) is not an integer but close to 6.
> > (n) is transcendental according to Wolfram alpha.
> > Dan
> >
> --
> Just as 'beautiful' points the way for aesthetics and 'good' for ethics,
> so do words like 'true' for logic. All sciences have truth as their
> goal; but logic is also concerned with it in a quite different way:
> logic has much the same relation to truth as physics has to weight or
> heat. Frege in 'Thoughts' (Der Gedanke)

djoyce099 wrote:
> On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 11:12:14 AM UTC-4, Peter wrote:
>> djoyce099 wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 4:14:01 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 3:32:16 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 2:40:00 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 8:54:35 AM UTC-7, djoyce099 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:52:52 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:44:31 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 5:54:39 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> sqrt((e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3))= 3.1415932235... or ---- 1/(((e^6)/(pi^5))-1) = 3.1415920835...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3.1415932235857142043046233744896247010613124302570133810522481987395535359444161389937382706863183574...
>>>>>>>>>> 3.1415920835939756900037537697591231827972490365729352503570427152871946951610718594628267326022276173...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The difference between the two then divide by 2 and add to the second entry above of <pi and this will =
>>>>>>>>>> 3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
>>>>>>>>>> A much closer approximation to pi (12 correct digits of pi).
>>>>>>>>>> Also curious if you divide the difference by 2, as above but subtract it from the first larger entry
>>>>>>>>>> from above the results are the same---
>>>>>>>>>> 3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>>> Correction To the above--
>>>>>>>>> (e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3)= 3.1415932235b (no sqrt.)
>>>>>>>> Enter this in Wolfram Alpha --- (e^6 - pi^5)/pi^3 =>pi
>>>>>>> Who can come up with a closer relationship of the above of pi and e outside of the imaginary e^pi*i = -1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>> PI is a round closed curve... e is not...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>>> Yeah, I know the difference, but that is not the question!
>>>>> I am just looking for a closer relationship of what I found with ---
>>>>> (e^6 - pi^5)/pi^3 =>pi (5.699592e-7 a > pi difference)
>>>>> Using any or all of the 4 operators, +,-,/,^ and any integers along with pi and e in the equation to accomplish the challenge
>>>>> above.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan
>>>> 1/(((e^6)/(pi^5))-1) =<pi (5.6999581e-7 a < pi difference) so (e^6 - pi^5)/pi^3 =>pi is the best so far.
>>>
>>> Okay, try this -- n=(pi +1)*(pi^4) then e^(in(n)) = n
>
> That was dumb (e^(in(n)) = n). I can understand the confusion.
>
>> You mean log(n) or ln(n). Deja vu all over again.
>
> You are right, it should be --- In(n)

Jesus fucking Christ. No it should not. The natural logarithm goes by
two names. One is lowercase ell followed by lower case en. The other
is ell-oh-gee (all lowercase). In the second case use a subscript "e",
but only if logarithms to other bases are being used.

>
>>> I know, in(n) is not an integer but close to 6.
>>> (n) is transcendental according to Wolfram alpha.
>>> Dan
>>>
>> --
>> Just as 'beautiful' points the way for aesthetics and 'good' for ethics,
>> so do words like 'true' for logic. All sciences have truth as their
>> goal; but logic is also concerned with it in a quite different way:
>> logic has much the same relation to truth as physics has to weight or
>> heat. Frege in 'Thoughts' (Der Gedanke)

--
Just as 'beautiful' points the way for aesthetics and 'good' for ethics,
so do words like 'true' for logic. All sciences have truth as their
goal; but logic is also concerned with it in a quite different way:
logic has much the same relation to truth as physics has to weight or
heat. Frege in 'Thoughts' (Der Gedanke)

On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 5:50:14 PM UTC-4, Peter wrote:
> djoyce099 wrote:
> > On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 11:12:14 AM UTC-4, Peter wrote:
> >> djoyce099 wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 4:14:01 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 3:32:16 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 2:40:00 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 8:54:35 AM UTC-7, djoyce099 wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:52:52 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:44:31 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 5:54:39 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> sqrt((e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3))= 3.1415932235... or ---- 1/(((e^6)/(pi^5))-1) = 3.1415920835...
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 3.1415932235857142043046233744896247010613124302570133810522481987395535359444161389937382706863183574...
> >>>>>>>>>> 3.1415920835939756900037537697591231827972490365729352503570427152871946951610718594628267326022276173...
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The difference between the two then divide by 2 and add to the second entry above of <pi and this will =
> >>>>>>>>>> 3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
> >>>>>>>>>> A much closer approximation to pi (12 correct digits of pi).
> >>>>>>>>>> Also curious if you divide the difference by 2, as above but subtract it from the first larger entry
> >>>>>>>>>> from above the results are the same---
> >>>>>>>>>> 3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Dan
> >>>>>>>>> Correction To the above--
> >>>>>>>>> (e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3)= 3.1415932235b (no sqrt.)
> >>>>>>>> Enter this in Wolfram Alpha --- (e^6 - pi^5)/pi^3 =>pi
> >>>>>>> Who can come up with a closer relationship of the above of pi and e outside of the imaginary e^pi*i = -1
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dan
> >>>>>> PI is a round closed curve... e is not...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
> >>>>> Yeah, I know the difference, but that is not the question!
> >>>>> I am just looking for a closer relationship of what I found with ---
> >>>>> (e^6 - pi^5)/pi^3 =>pi (5.699592e-7 a > pi difference)
> >>>>> Using any or all of the 4 operators, +,-,/,^ and any integers along with pi and e in the equation to accomplish the challenge
> >>>>> above.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dan
> >>>> 1/(((e^6)/(pi^5))-1) =<pi (5.6999581e-7 a < pi difference) so (e^6 - pi^5)/pi^3 =>pi is the best so far.
> >>>
> >>> Okay, try this -- n=(pi +1)*(pi^4) then e^(in(n)) = n
> >
> > That was dumb (e^(in(n)) = n). I can understand the confusion.
> >
> >> You mean log(n) or ln(n). Deja vu all over again.
> >
> > You are right, it should be --- In(n)
> Jesus fucking Christ. No it should not. The natural logarithm goes by
> two names. One is lowercase ell followed by lower case en. The other
> is ell-oh-gee (all lowercase). In the second case use a subscript "e",
> but only if logarithms to other bases are being used.

We had this discussion before and that is the symbol used on the button of the 10,000 digit calculator that I use. In(n)
Next time I will use what Wolfram excepts--- natural log(e)(n).
example-- n =403.4287934927 then log(e)(n) =<6
Is that acceptable?

> >>> I know, in(n) is not an integer but close to 6.
> >>> (n) is transcendental according to Wolfram alpha.
> >>> Dan
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Just as 'beautiful' points the way for aesthetics and 'good' for ethics,
> >> so do words like 'true' for logic. All sciences have truth as their
> >> goal; but logic is also concerned with it in a quite different way:
> >> logic has much the same relation to truth as physics has to weight or
> >> heat. Frege in 'Thoughts' (Der Gedanke)
>
>
> --
> Just as 'beautiful' points the way for aesthetics and 'good' for ethics,
> so do words like 'true' for logic. All sciences have truth as their
> goal; but logic is also concerned with it in a quite different way:
> logic has much the same relation to truth as physics has to weight or
> heat. Frege in 'Thoughts' (Der Gedanke)

djoyce099 wrote:
> On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 5:50:14 PM UTC-4, Peter wrote:
>> djoyce099 wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 11:12:14 AM UTC-4, Peter wrote:
>>>> djoyce099 wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 4:14:01 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 3:32:16 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 2:40:00 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 8:54:35 AM UTC-7, djoyce099 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:52:52 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:44:31 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 5:54:39 PM UTC-4, djoyce099 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> sqrt((e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3))= 3.1415932235... or ---- 1/(((e^6)/(pi^5))-1) = 3.1415920835...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.1415932235857142043046233744896247010613124302570133810522481987395535359444161389937382706863183574...
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.1415920835939756900037537697591231827972490365729352503570427152871946951610718594628267326022276173...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The difference between the two then divide by 2 and add to the second entry above of <pi and this will =
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
>>>>>>>>>>>> A much closer approximation to pi (12 correct digits of pi).
>>>>>>>>>>>> Also curious if you divide the difference by 2, as above but subtract it from the first larger entry
>>>>>>>>>>>> from above the results are the same---
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.14159265358984494715418857212437394192928073341497431570464545701337411555274399922828250164427298735...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>>>>> Correction To the above--
>>>>>>>>>>> (e^6-pi^5)/(pi^3)= 3.1415932235b (no sqrt.)
>>>>>>>>>> Enter this in Wolfram Alpha --- (e^6 - pi^5)/pi^3 =>pi
>>>>>>>>> Who can come up with a closer relationship of the above of pi and e outside of the imaginary e^pi*i = -1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>> PI is a round closed curve... e is not...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>>>>> Yeah, I know the difference, but that is not the question!
>>>>>>> I am just looking for a closer relationship of what I found with ---
>>>>>>> (e^6 - pi^5)/pi^3 =>pi (5.699592e-7 a > pi difference)
>>>>>>> Using any or all of the 4 operators, +,-,/,^ and any integers along with pi and e in the equation to accomplish the challenge
>>>>>>> above.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>> 1/(((e^6)/(pi^5))-1) =<pi (5.6999581e-7 a < pi difference) so (e^6 - pi^5)/pi^3 =>pi is the best so far.
>>>>>
>>>>> Okay, try this -- n=(pi +1)*(pi^4) then e^(in(n)) = n
>>>
>>> That was dumb (e^(in(n)) = n). I can understand the confusion.
>>>
>>>> You mean log(n) or ln(n). Deja vu all over again.
>>>
>>> You are right, it should be --- In(n)
>> Jesus fucking Christ. No it should not. The natural logarithm goes by
>> two names. One is lowercase ell followed by lower case en. The other
>> is ell-oh-gee (all lowercase). In the second case use a subscript "e",
>> but only if logarithms to other bases are being used.
>
> We had this discussion before

And you learned nothing?

> and that is the symbol used on the button of the 10,000 digit calculator

Then you are copying an error.

> that I use. In(n)
> Next time I will use what Wolfram excepts--- natural log(e)(n).
> example-- n =403.4287934927 then log(e)(n) =<6
> Is that acceptable?
>
>>>>> I know, in(n) is not an integer but close to 6.
>>>>> (n) is transcendental according to Wolfram alpha.
>>>>> Dan
>

Frege in 'Thoughts' (Der Gedanke)

--
Just as 'beautiful' points the way for aesthetics and 'good' for ethics,
so do words like 'true' for logic. All sciences have truth as their
goal; but logic is also concerned with it in a quite different way:
logic has much the same relation to truth as physics has to weight or
heat. Frege in 'Thoughts' (Der Gedanke)

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 08:59:41 -0700 (PDT), djoyce099
<hlauk.h.bogart@gmail.com> wrote:

>We had this discussion before and that is the symbol used on the button of the 10,000 digit calculator that I use. In(n)

And during that discussion, we asked you to identify the calculator so
anyone sufficiently interested could see what other non-standard
nomenclature it used. It would help us understand when you use terms
we are not familiar with or use them in an unusual way.

>Next time I will use what Wolfram excepts--- natural log(e)(n).

I'm not familiar with what Wolfram accepts but there is no other base
of natural logarithms than e. So if you formula includes the text
"natural log" then the (e) is superfluous.

The common terminology uses ln (ell-en) for natural log (log base e)
and log for log base 10. Logarithms for a particular base b usually
specify the base as a subscript after the word "log." Since Usenet
doesn't support subscripts, it is usually written as log_b to
differentiate it from base 10. 2 is the most common base other than
10.

>example-- n =403.4287934927 then log(e)(n) =<6
>Is that acceptable?

As long as what you write can be understood by someone who doesn't
know where your non-standard notations come from, then yes.

--
Remove del for email

On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 1:41:08 PM UTC-4, Barry Schwarz wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 08:59:41 -0700 (PDT), djoyce099
> <hlauk.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >We had this discussion before and that is the symbol used on the button of the 10,000 digit calculator that I use. In(n)
> And during that discussion, we asked you to identify the calculator so
> anyone sufficiently interested could see what other non-standard
> nomenclature it used. It would help us understand when you use terms
> we are not familiar with or use them in an unusual way.
> >Next time I will use what Wolfram excepts--- natural log(e)(n).
> I'm not familiar with what Wolfram accepts but there is no other base
> of natural logarithms than e. So if you formula includes the text
> "natural log" then the (e) is superfluous.
>
> The common terminology uses ln (ell-en) for natural log (log base e)
> and log for log base 10. Logarithms for a particular base b usually
> specify the base as a subscript after the word "log." Since Usenet
> doesn't support subscripts, it is usually written as log_b to
> differentiate it from base 10. 2 is the most common base other than
> 10.
> >example-- n =403.4287934927 then log(e)(n) =<6
> >Is that acceptable?
> As long as what you write can be understood by someone who doesn't
> know where your non-standard notations come from, then yes.
>
> --
> Remove del for email
Here is the description of the digital calculator I use. Not sure if there is a download available.

b calc for windows version 2.05 copyright @1999,2010 GF Cornwell

djoyce099 used his or her keyboard to write :
> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 1:41:08 PM UTC-4, Barry Schwarz wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 08:59:41 -0700 (PDT), djoyce099
>> <hlauk.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> We had this discussion before and that is the symbol used on the button of
>>> the 10,000 digit calculator that I use. In(n)
>> And during that discussion, we asked you to identify the calculator so
>> anyone sufficiently interested could see what other non-standard
>> nomenclature it used. It would help us understand when you use terms
>> we are not familiar with or use them in an unusual way.
>>> Next time I will use what Wolfram excepts--- natural log(e)(n).
>> I'm not familiar with what Wolfram accepts but there is no other base
>> of natural logarithms than e. So if you formula includes the text
>> "natural log" then the (e) is superfluous.
>>
>> The common terminology uses ln (ell-en) for natural log (log base e)
>> and log for log base 10. Logarithms for a particular base b usually
>> specify the base as a subscript after the word "log." Since Usenet
>> doesn't support subscripts, it is usually written as log_b to
>> differentiate it from base 10. 2 is the most common base other than
>> 10.
>>> example-- n =403.4287934927 then log(e)(n) =<6
>>> Is that acceptable?
>> As long as what you write can be understood by someone who doesn't
>> know where your non-standard notations come from, then yes.
>>
>> --
>> Remove del for email
> Here is the description of the digital calculator I use. Not sure if there is
> a download available.
>
> b calc for windows version 2.05 copyright @1999,2010 GF Cornwell

https://windows-cdn.softpedia.com/screenshots/Cornwell-BCalc_3.png

It's a lower-case ell, not an uppercase eye.

djoyce099 wrote:
> [...]
> Here is the description of the digital calculator I use. Not sure if there is a download available.
>
> b calc for windows

Betcha you are being misled by a sans serif font. Or you _were_ misled,
but why go on being misled?

version 2.05 copyright @1999,2010 GF Cornwell
>

--
Just as 'beautiful' points the way for aesthetics and 'good' for ethics,
so do words like 'true' for logic. All sciences have truth as their
goal; but logic is also concerned with it in a quite different way:
logic has much the same relation to truth as physics has to weight or
heat. Frege in 'Thoughts' (Der Gedanke)

On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:33:33 AM UTC-4, Peter wrote:
> djoyce099 wrote:
> > [...]
> > Here is the description of the digital calculator I use. Not sure if there is a download available.
> >
> > b calc for windows
> Betcha you are being misled by a sans serif font. Or you _were_ misled,
> but why go on being misled?
> version 2.05 copyright @1999,2010 GF Cornwell

This is a powerful scientific calculator where I have not used all its features.
The log(e) key (In) is right next to the (e^x) key.
It is easy to use and has up to 10,000 digit accuracy so shame on me for using it.
As long as it continues to produce correct results, then I am going to continue to use it.
I am not being misled at all.

> Just as 'beautiful' points the way for aesthetics and 'good' for ethics,
> so do words like 'true' for logic. All sciences have truth as their
> goal; but logic is also concerned with it in a quite different way:
> logic has much the same relation to truth as physics has to weight or
> heat. Frege in 'Thoughts' (Der Gedanke)

This is a powerful scientific calculator where I have not used all its features.
The log(e) key (In) is right next to the (e^x) key.
It is easy to use and has up to 10,000 digit accuracy so shame on me for using it.
I am going to continue to use it.
I am not being misled at all.

djoyce099 wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:33:33 AM UTC-4, Peter wrote:
>> djoyce099 wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Here is the description of the digital calculator I use. Not sure if there is a download available.
>>>
>>> b calc for windows
>> Betcha you are being misled by a sans serif font. Or you _were_ misled,
>> but why go on being misled?
>> version 2.05 copyright @1999,2010 GF Cornwell
>
> This is a powerful scientific calculator where I have not used all its features.
> The log(e) key (In) is right next to the (e^x) key.
> It is easy to use and has up to 10,000 digit accuracy so shame on me for using it.
> As long as it continues to produce correct results, then I am going to continue to use it.
> I am not being misled at all.

And yet you just wrote "The log(e) key (In) is..." when "The log(e) key
(ln) is..." is correct.

My comments were not about your use of BCalc, they were about what you
type here.
>
>> Just as 'beautiful' points the way for aesthetics and 'good' for ethics,
>> so do words like 'true' for logic. All sciences have truth as their
>> goal; but logic is also concerned with it in a quite different way:
>> logic has much the same relation to truth as physics has to weight or
>> heat. Frege in 'Thoughts' (Der Gedanke)
>
> This is a powerful scientific calculator where I have not used all its features.
> The log(e) key (In) is right next to the (e^x) key.
> It is easy to use and has up to 10,000 digit accuracy so shame on me for using it.
> I am going to continue to use it.
> I am not being misled at all.
>

--
Just as 'beautiful' points the way for aesthetics and 'good' for ethics,
so do words like 'true' for logic. All sciences have truth as their
goal; but logic is also concerned with it in a quite different way:
logic has much the same relation to truth as physics has to weight or
heat. Frege in 'Thoughts' (Der Gedanke)

On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 2:13:03 PM UTC-4, Peter wrote:
> djoyce099 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:33:33 AM UTC-4, Peter wrote:
> >> djoyce099 wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>> Here is the description of the digital calculator I use. Not sure if there is a download available.
> >>>
> >>> b calc for windows
> >> Betcha you are being misled by a sans serif font. Or you _were_ misled,
> >> but why go on being misled?
> >> version 2.05 copyright @1999,2010 GF Cornwell
> >
> > This is a powerful scientific calculator where I have not used all its features.
> > The log(e) key (In) is right next to the (e^x) key.
> > It is easy to use and has up to 10,000 digit accuracy so shame on me for using it.
> > As long as it continues to produce correct results, then I am going to continue to use it.
> > I am not being misled at all.
> And yet you just wrote "The log(e) key (In) is..." when "The log(e) key
> (ln) is..." is correct.
>
> My comments were not about your use of BCalc, they were about what you
> type here.

MY bad-- so to the original problem, is there a closer relationship to pi and e than what I show?
Except for the imaginary version, it is just a coincidence I know but still interesting.
> >> Just as 'beautiful' points the way for aesthetics and 'good' for ethics,
> >> so do words like 'true' for logic. All sciences have truth as their
> >> goal; but logic is also concerned with it in a quite different way:
> >> logic has much the same relation to truth as physics has to weight or
> >> heat. Frege in 'Thoughts' (Der Gedanke)
> >
> > This is a powerful scientific calculator where I have not used all its features.
> > The log(e) key (In) is right next to the (e^x) key.
> > It is easy to use and has up to 10,000 digit accuracy so shame on me for using it.
> > I am going to continue to use it.
> > I am not being misled at all.
> >
> --
> Just as 'beautiful' points the way for aesthetics and 'good' for ethics,
> so do words like 'true' for logic. All sciences have truth as their
> goal; but logic is also concerned with it in a quite different way:
> logic has much the same relation to truth as physics has to weight or
> heat. Frege in 'Thoughts' (Der Gedanke)

djoyce099 wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 2:13:03 PM UTC-4, Peter wrote:
>> djoyce099 wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:33:33 AM UTC-4, Peter wrote:
>>>> djoyce099 wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> Here is the description of the digital calculator I use. Not sure if there is a download available.
>>>>>
>>>>> b calc for windows
>>>> Betcha you are being misled by a sans serif font. Or you _were_ misled,
>>>> but why go on being misled?
>>>> version 2.05 copyright @1999,2010 GF Cornwell
>>>
>>> This is a powerful scientific calculator where I have not used all its features.
>>> The log(e) key (In) is right next to the (e^x) key.
>>> It is easy to use and has up to 10,000 digit accuracy so shame on me for using it.
>>> As long as it continues to produce correct results, then I am going to continue to use it.
>>> I am not being misled at all.
>> And yet you just wrote "The log(e) key (In) is..." when "The log(e) key
>> (ln) is..." is correct.
>>
>> My comments were not about your use of BCalc, they were about what you
>> type here.
>
> MY bad-- so to the original problem, is there a closer relationship to pi and e than what I show?
> Except for the imaginary version, it is just a coincidence I know but still interesting.

There are some positive integers called Heegner numbers. These are
they: 1, 2, 3, 7, 11, 19, 43, 67, and 163. They arise in algebra in
ways that needn't concern us. If h is a Heenger number then

e^{pi sqrt h}

is close to an integer, and the bigger h the closer. For example with h
= 163 the difference is about 0.00000000000075.

You may know that

n^2 - n + 41

is prime for n = 1, 2, ..., 40. And this is connected to max h = 4*41 - 1.

--
Just as 'beautiful' points the way for aesthetics and 'good' for ethics,
so do words like 'true' for logic. All sciences have truth as their
goal; but logic is also concerned with it in a quite different way:
logic has much the same relation to truth as physics has to weight or
heat. Frege in 'Thoughts' (Der Gedanke)

On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 11:21:47 AM UTC-4, Peter wrote:
> djoyce099 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 2:13:03 PM UTC-4, Peter wrote:
> >> djoyce099 wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:33:33 AM UTC-4, Peter wrote:
> >>>> djoyce099 wrote:
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>> Here is the description of the digital calculator I use. Not sure if there is a download available.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> b calc for windows
> >>>> Betcha you are being misled by a sans serif font. Or you _were_ misled,
> >>>> but why go on being misled?
> >>>> version 2.05 copyright @1999,2010 GF Cornwell
> >>>
> >>> This is a powerful scientific calculator where I have not used all its features.
> >>> The log(e) key (In) is right next to the (e^x) key.
> >>> It is easy to use and has up to 10,000 digit accuracy so shame on me for using it.
> >>> As long as it continues to produce correct results, then I am going to continue to use it.
> >>> I am not being misled at all.
> >> And yet you just wrote "The log(e) key (In) is..." when "The log(e) key
> >> (ln) is..." is correct.
> >>
> >> My comments were not about your use of BCalc, they were about what you
> >> type here.
> >
> > MY bad-- so to the original problem, is there a closer relationship to pi and e than what I show?
> > Except for the imaginary version, it is just a coincidence I know but still interesting.
> There are some positive integers called Heegner numbers. These are
> they: 1, 2, 3, 7, 11, 19, 43, 67, and 163. They arise in algebra in
> ways that needn't concern us. If h is a Heenger number then
>
> e^{pi sqrt h}
>
> is close to an integer, and the bigger h the closer. For example with h
> = 163 the difference is about 0.00000000000075.

Interesting that 163 is probably the largest known Heenger number and why e and pi
are involved.
Is it just another coincidence?

> You may know that
Yes.
> n^2 - n + 41
>
> is prime for n = 1, 2, ..., 40. And this is connected to max h = 4*41 - 1.
> Just as 'beautiful' points the way for aesthetics and 'good' for ethics,
> so do words like 'true' for logic. All sciences have truth as their
> goal; but logic is also concerned with it in a quite different way:
> logic has much the same relation to truth as physics has to weight or
> heat. Frege in 'Thoughts' (Der Gedanke)