The glee of (geek) children
Jun. 25th, 2013 05:23 pmThis AM my younger informed me that he has named a pet stuffed cephalopod "Octo-Pi".
He carefully explained that this means "pi to the eighth" but confessed he's having trouble calculating it. I offered to help him with that tonight; I hope he's in a mood to accept approximations.
He carefully explained that this means "pi to the eighth" but confessed he's having trouble calculating it. I offered to help him with that tonight; I hope he's in a mood to accept approximations.
no subject
Date: 2013-06-25 05:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-25 06:32 pm (UTC)Geek smalls make me smile.
no subject
Date: 2013-06-25 07:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-25 08:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-25 08:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-25 08:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-25 09:31 pm (UTC)Sadly "octopi" is like "five" (ie right out)
no subject
Date: 2013-06-26 03:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-26 12:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-26 12:53 am (UTC)1) Ask him to think about what fraction of numbers have no square factors (other than 1).
2) Make an estimate by seeing how many numbers up to 10 have no square factors (2,3,5,6,7,10) --- okay, that's about 60%.
3) Tell him that the exact answer is known to be 6/Pi^2.
3a) Hope that he doesn't ask you for a proof of 3).
4) From 2) and 3), we have 6/Pi^2 is approx .6. Have him figure out what this tells him about Pi^2.
5) Now that he knows Pi^2 is about 10, have him estimate Pi^8 = (Pi^2)^4=10^4.
___________
Extra credit:
6) Instead of using the numbers from 1 to 10, have him use the numbers from 1 to 100. If I just counted right (which I'm not sure of), he'll find that 63 are square-free. (First have him count the multiples of 4, then the multiples of 9, etc, then correct for double-counting --- e.g. you don't want to count 36 as both a multiple of 4 and of 9.)
7) Use this to get an even 'better" estimate of Pi^8.
8) Discover that your estimate just got worse, not better.
9) Talk about how taking a bigger sample can sometimes make your results less accurate --- but taking even *bigger* samples (e..g. counting all squarefree numbers up to a million, or a billion) is guaranteed to give you better accuracy.
no subject
Date: 2013-06-26 01:47 am (UTC)