User talk:Π/ArchiveLiquid

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Π! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Don't worry, as long as you've plenty of pi to feed the goats. Susan^purrrrr 03:37, 4 March 2008 (EST)

There may be a problem here, Houston! I ate all the pi 15:09, 4 March 2008 (EST)

26535 is not that hard to remember. ;) human 01:06, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

...89792328. That's as far as I ever got. :) Ok, I admit I had to look up the last 4, but once I saw them I TOTALLY remembered that I used to know that far!! Lurker 01:50, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Hmmm, has anyone ever proved that any given specific run of digits is not anywhere in pi? Because if not, one could just kinda say "I know a hundred digits of pi" and rattle off a hundred random numbers. "... 857823504870234590 ... 98325708476443494 ..." : "I didn't claim I know which digits they were!" human 18:21, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't know, but I think I've read that all three digit numbers are in pi, not that that's really that hard to figure out manually if need be. This website is kinda cool. It lets you search for any string within the first 50,000,000 digits of pi. No proofs though, and 0123456789 isn't ther :( :( Lurker 20:38, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Interesting. Brute force could certainly prove that strings up to n length are all there, but would get very tiresome for larger ns. And we'd still only be testing the digits we have worked out already. Wouldn't it be neat if someone could prove that all irrational numbers contain each other at some point?! human 21:19, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Whoa. Crazy thought. I guess if they truly are infinite and non-repeating, then any irrational number should contain the first n digits of any other random number, right? We should publish this; the Human-Lurker hypothesis will take over the world!! You know, because something like that is highly practical, I'm sure. Lurker 21:33, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

(undent) Yeah, publish or perish! Actually, infinite and non-repeating does not imply some sort of "completeness" - heck, you could do it with two digits if you wanted to. But, if the Human-Lurker hypothesis was true, I suspect it would have deep mathematical and perhaps even philosophical ramifications. But first, we should ignore this base ten anthropomorphic tripe and do it all in the universal language of base 2. What is pi in base 2, anywazy? human 21:57, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

(11.0010010000...)

Come on Now

Dude(ette?) So not cool.. you totally snaked my idea about taking long, off subject posts and creating a debate page.... I stole that technique fair and square.... I should block you right now, but I won't... But if you wish to continue with this project, I need to see a writing plan within three calendar days (Chinese Calendar, not Hebrew) SirChuckB^{Go Naked, Hitler Wore Clothes} 21:33, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Now we have too much pi

And it's all your fault _{↳ ↑ <blink>⇨</blink> ↕ <blink>▽</blink> ←} 01:17, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Any left over pi can be feed to the goat. $\approx$$\pi$ 01:18, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I hate goats. _{↳ ↑ <blink>⇨</blink> ↕ <blink>▽</blink> ←} 01:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

How can you hate goats; they are ugly and have beards? $\approx$$\pi$ 01:30, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm watching you.... _{↳ ↑ <blink>⇨</blink> ↕ <blink>▽</blink> ←} 01:33, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

An absurd statement. You can never have to much pi(e). --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 04:04, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Suggestion

Please don't take this wrongly, but your spelling seems to be ... how to put it .... crap. Could I suggest that you download/install Firefox which has a built in spellchecker.   ^Contribs_Talk 08:26, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

I have Firefox I just don't use it. I probably should in the future. Thanks. $\approx$$\pi$ 21:40, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Atheism

Nice (excellent) work. The next, brutal step is to convert it to the latest SxS format, where the headers are "outside" the tables, and each point/counterpoint is a its own table. Yell here if you don't know what I mean... ħuman 03:34, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't know what you mean. Is a yell-by-proxy good enough? : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:37, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Basically you want it the same as the stolen Lenski table? $\approx$$\pi$ 03:37, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Good work that man.--Bob^{bing up} 09:05, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Conservative Monopoly

Hi, great job on the monopoly board. Are you going to add http links to all institutions and stuff? --RuffNekk ^Arrr! 07:30, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

It depends you might not want to read their websites. Some are pretty sacrey. $\approx$$\pi$ 18:51, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

When are you gonna copy the proportional one over to the article? I'd say only wiki-links if we have articles, by the way... ħuman 18:54, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I though CC was a little ambiguous and Christian Coaltion for America streaches the box. $\approx$$\pi$ 18:58, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I tried just Christian Coalition and it comes out ok. I think it is well enough known by that name...? ħuman 19:19, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Okay that's good. I thought Christian Coalition sounded a little generic, I don't know how well they are known the came in in a search for "conservative grassroots organizations". $\approx$$\pi$ 19:26, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah I wasn't about to get converted or anything, I would say wiki-links only as well. --RuffNekk ^Arrr! 03:13, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

CP timeline

I think some of what you are doing isn't making it better... you might want to discuss some of this in the talk page before restructuring the entire article. Please? ħuman 01:38, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Um...

That unsigned thing was just a silly joke, 3.14. He's still an IP address.
Please tell me you didn't really think Jinxmchue would sign up as "Jinxy jinx jinx". Please. _{↳ ↑ <blink>⇨</blink> ↕ <blink>▽</blink> ←} 02:19, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Really. I actual underestimated the cognitive abilities of Jinx. $\approx$$\pi$ 02:27, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

DAMN YOU

YOU BROKE THE PATTERN. tmtoulouse ^harass 01:29, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

the wikipedia link

that I used was loaded with good source material. Did I find the 1906 & 1915 originals and check them? Nope. But I will keep your advise in mind. Carptrash 01:27, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

At use a permalink. You already knew this. And not checking the source means you believed some teenager on the internet. ħuman 01:30, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Why are we now having this discussion on my talk page? Another thing Carptrash keep conversations on one talkpage that way when two people are having an intimate discussion everyone can stick there two cents in much easier. $\approx$$\pi$ 01:36, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah! What? Oh... ħuman 01:40, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Do not presume to know what I do and do not know. For example I have not the faintest idea what this "At use a permalink" means. Carptrash 01:44, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Fine User:3.14159. One page = your page. Carptrash 01:46, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

On the side bar of most wikis there is a box called toolbox. One of these reads permanent link. If you click this it will take you to a new but almost identical page with a time stamp (try it). Use the new URL displayed in the web address bar at the top when linking to that page (especially at CP where things tend to go missing). $\approx$$\pi$ 01:47, 15 August 2008 (EDT)