I've always told students, "
You should use at least three different sources when studying a particular subject, since you may, 1) have trouble understanding what one author says at times, or 2) wish to verify some questionable 'facts' presented by someone. But when trying to verify the validity of a number, use as many reliable sources as possible! " |
The CAD server which contained the erroneous Pi file at UCLA was shut down quite some time ago (see below); if you find a copy on any other server at UCLA please let me know. The emphasis here is still the same: You should always verify data found on the Net (especially numerical data), no matter where you find it; you'll soon see why!
Many years ago, while clicking a link at YAHOO
searching for Pi values, we came across a link that was
(and finally no longer is) on this page:
http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Mathematics/Numerical_Analysis/Numbers/Specific_Numbers/Pi/Decimal_Digits/
Back then, the page looked similar to this:
Home > Science > Mathematics
> Numerical Analysis > Numbers > Specific Numbers > Pi > appeared as the best choice for most people when compared to the millions and billions of digits above it.] |
Untitled |
But the value stored there was
all wrong after the first 15,093 decimal digit!
(After
sending various people at UCLA e-mails for about 5 years, we got tired
of never getting a single reply AND never finding
a correction to the site; let alone a correction with a note explaining
why they revised it... something we'd logically assume they'd have to do. Instead,
after some months of people telling us they could no longer access the file,
we finally concluded this particular server at UCLA had been shut down permanently
[ which could, of
course, have been for a completely unrelated reason ].
Obviously, since the whole server was gone, there would never be a need
for UCLA to explain why this faulty Pi file had ever been there! So,
they 'saved face' either way! )
The file itself had been clearly dated on the
server as: 27-Jun-93 16:24 117k
and with YAHOO's and GOOGLE's help (and possibly other search engines of that
time), the world had been served up a copy of this erroneous value for MANY
YEARS.
Quite some time back, The Yahoo Directory for "Pi Digits" was down to only three links; ours was third on the list! Today (21 March 2006) it looks similar to this:
Directory >
Science > Mathematics > Numerical Analysis > Numbers > Specific
Numbers > Pi > Decimal Digits
|
These files correspond to:
1) http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~huberty/math5337/groupe/digits.html;
probably created with
a Pi calculation program, since the
last three digits ("541")
are in error. They should
read: 464 (and
the 100,000-th decimal digit is a 6
). This is an example of why you must
always carefully check the end of any Pi file, since most
programs will be incorrect there!
2) Our web site (by The Starman; link is to our
new "Math" Geocities site).
3) The author of this site is having 'bandwidth problems' and
is more interested in other topics!
4) http://www.cecm.sfu.ca/projects/ISC/data/pi.html;
reliable, but all links, except for
the mere 10,000-digit files, are
still broken!!! The last digit in their 10,000-digit file
is
actually the 9,999-th decimal digit
and it was rounded-up from a 7 to
an 8. (It would be more
helpful if they mentioned doing this!)
So, why does this still concern me?
Because many unsuspecting students had already copyied
this file thinking they could trust it! On the other hand, it may
teach someone who stumbles across my page here, that 'you should never
trust un-verified numerical data! ' As a matter of fact, trying to put
a positive spin on my experiences while sending e-mails to UCLA, I had even
speculated that this might be some kind of test by a professor there to see
if his students understood what it meant to acquire VERIFIABLE information.
But now I'm quite sure that wasn't the case! It was just a mistake someone made,
perhaps by a student who never learned the necessity of checking for errors
or even a university employee, and it was never corrected. Unfortunately,
there are now many other web sites which have copied the same erroneous data,
and that's one reason why this page still exists: To show you how to identify
these erroneous Pi digits!
The errors
in this file has been verified in many different ways; comparing it to a number
of reliable sources elsewhere. Would it surprise you to know that word
processors (if fast enough) are helpful in doing this? (Though anyone
with a sufficient knowledge of perl could also write a script
file to remove all the unwanted blank spaces and line feeds too.) The first
step in running the digital comparisons with other Pi files, was to use a word
processor to remove all but the actual digits of Pi. For example, there were
18,333 spaces and 1,667 UNIX-style linefeeds which we removed from the file
from UCLA. And we always got the same results every time: Only the first 15,093
decimal-digits (of the supposed 100,000) were correct!
You can perform an easier test on
files like this yourself, by looking at the 252nd-line of decimal digits
where the errors first occurred (we've underlined the last good digit, the 15,093rd,
while showing the beginning of the incorrect digits in
red ):
ResultsThe string 73884266 was found at position 15093 counting from the first digitafter the decimal point. The 3. is not counted. Find Next The string and surrounding digits: 79866205734083757668 73884266 40599099350500081337 This page was brought to you by David G. Andersen [ WWW ] [Email] Return to the Pi-Search Page. this query took 0.001799 seconds to process |
I've 'highlighted' the digit-position
(15093) for you, and you can clearly see that the digits following the 73884266
all agree with those from my own file; not the one from UCLA.
If you read Mr. Andersen's initial page, you'll find that he also verified the
Pi files that he uses. Note that my use of his program is not meant to
imply that I ever verified all of what used to be a 50,000,000-digit database,
and was just recently (on Pi day; 14 March 2001) doubled to the size of 100,000,000
digits(!) by Mr. Andersen. I would like to state though, that I've never
found a single discrepancy between his digits and any from my sources
that I have checked there. As I said above, this was just a quick
method to show that other files independent of my own do not match this file at
UCLA. A much more rigorous method of digitally comparing every single byte from
numerous sites containing 'officially' VERIFIED Pi files was used in creating
the Pi files found here at The Starman's Realm!
(You can also check the list below* for other Pi files that I've recently verified
as being accurate.)
You'll find my own 100,000 digit text file of Pi
here:
PI.100.000.TXT -- 100,000
Decimal Digits of Pi.
( Each block of 1000 digits is clearly labeled with 50 digits per line; each line
being composed of five 10-digit strings. I've even included the next 50 digits
AFTER the 100,000-th digit so there's no question about whether the last digit
was rounded off or not. ) My Pi
Files Download Page also lists some of the sources
which I've used to VERIFY the Pi files here.
|
If you enter the sequence reference number of A000796 into the search form on this page: http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/index.html and make sure to click on the 'radio button' next to the words "sequence number," you'll be presented with a page that lists on-line references to the "Decimal expansion of Pi." About half-way down you'll see the two lines (without the yellow highlight):
which used to end with the following statement:
Mr. Marshall and I did exchange an email at one time about the fact that he couldn't make a connection with the cad.ucla.edu server; apparently he forwarded the data about my web site to Neil Sloane. I can only assume that N.J.A. Sloane, the "Integer Sequences" author, decided to drop the comments (shown above in red) at a more recent date; yet the link to the now defunct UCLA server is still there!
The Starman. Updated/Checked links on:
Tuesday, March 21st, 2006.
Last Update (added note about the "Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences"):
Tuesday, December 17th, 2002.
Revised: December 7th, 2003.