# 100,000 digits of pi

This is a discussion on 100,000 digits of pi within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by Zach L. Not read the book, what does he say about it? I guess you weren't replying ...

1. Originally Posted by Zach L.
I guess you weren't replying to me, but the number Phi shows up in tons of places. I haven't read the Da Vinci code, but the book I mentioned is all about where the number phi surfaces. Some examples:

-the construction of a perfect pentagran
-relationship between adjacent chambers in a sea mollusk
-sunflower florets
-crystals of materials
-shapes of galaxies
-pyramids and the parthenon
-the mona lisa

Those are the instances that are listed on the back cover, so I haven't given much away. It's truly fascinating if you enjoy math, as it not only discusses these things but the book comes with an ample amount of proofs.

2. > -the mona lisa

How does that work?

3. Originally Posted by Govtcheez
> -the mona lisa

How does that work?
"Da Vinci code" makes an excellent reading.. But not sure if true christains would like it...

The ration 1.618 (PHI):1 can be found on Mona Lisa's face,ration of height and width of the face)...

4. A lot of classical art (Greek) had people/things with that proportion. There is a reason it got the name "Golden ratio".

It also shows up in the closed form solution to the Fibonacci sequence.

Don't know if DaVinci Code would hold up mathematically to a lot of the books I enjoy reading, though.

5. In addition to Darkness's example, here are some practical examples (that Da Vinci himself discovered by digging up and measuring corpses): any person's height from feet to head divided by measure from feet to navel, shoulder to fingertip divided by elbow to fingertip, leg to foot over knee to foot.

Basically Dan Brown calls it the "divine proportion" (or something comparable) and details how it shows up practically everywhere in nature. The number of femail to male bees in any hive on earth yields a ratio of Phi, the measure of one rotation to the next on a snail shell is Phi, each spiral on a sea shell compared to a neighboring spiral is Phi, and perhaps the most interesting is values grow larger in the Fibonacci sequence the quotient of any two neighboring terms approaches Phi.

Quite interesting stuff really. Tom Hanks may star in the film next year. That'll be great; it's really a fantastic book.

6. Originally Posted by Zach L.
Don't know if DaVinci Code would hold up mathematically to a lot of the books I enjoy reading, though.
Its not a maths realted book... But an excellent thriller which makes reference to Da Vinci's work...

7. Originally Posted by vasanth
"Da Vinci code" makes an excellent reading.. But not sure if true christains would like it....
I dunno if that's true. I'm a hardcore Christian, and I loved the book. It's fiction, so it's not a big deal.

8. Originally Posted by LuckY
In addition to Darkness's example, here are some practical examples (that Da Vinci himself discovered by digging up and measuring corpses): any person's height from feet to head divided by measure from feet to navel, shoulder to fingertip divided by elbow to fingertip, leg to foot over knee to foot.
Did you get this from the book, or is it actually fact? Because that's not possible.

9. While lucky's example isn't necessarily right for ALL people it's actually the most basic idea of where the golden ratio comes from. This is what it stems from:

Take a line, and make a partition in it such that you have three measurements: the total length of the line, the length from the right side of the line to the partition (call this section A), then the length from the partition to the left side of the line (section B).

Now you have two ratio.

Ratio1 = the ratio between the length of the line to the larger parition

Ratio2 = the ratio between the larger partition to the smaller partition

When ratio1 == ratio2, it equals the golden ratio. I believe this is similar to what lucky meant, more specifically:

any person's height from feet to head divided by measure from feet to navel

10. Originally Posted by Govtcheez
Did you get this from the book, or is it actually fact? Because that's not possible.
That's from the book.

11. Originally Posted by gcn_zelda
That's from the book.

I'd rather not if it presents BS like that as fact.

12. >> That'll be great; it's really a fantastic book.

you gotta be kidding me. Dan Brown is such a mediocre author. The idea was pretty cool, but Brown can't write worth sh!t.

>>Did you get this from the book, or is it actually fact? Because that's not possible.

this is indeed a fact. Pythagoras was the first one to see the ratio in the human body. There are many resources about this topic.

edit:: golden ration in humna body: http://goldennumber.net/body.htm

13. Originally Posted by axon
I've already laughed at this link on AIM, now I'm going to do it here.

Hahaha.

14. Ummm... instead of laughing why do you disagree with it so much? After all its just a generalization/approximation.

Or better yet, do the measurements on your body and let us know the results

 I do agree that the bottom part of that webpage takes it a little too far though with the whole 5 appendages/5 indexes/5 senses thing. [/edit]

[edit2] Ok, I looked at the rest of that website and a lot of it is pretty sketchy/laughable, BUT the human body example has been well documented for hundreds of years [/edit2]

15. Originally Posted by PJYelton
 I do agree that the bottom part of that webpage takes it a little too far though with the whole 5 appendages/5 indexes/5 senses thing. [/edit]
That's the part I laughed about.

And axon and I did do the measuring thing for me - I came out with a 1.68 ratio of my height to head -> fingertip and feet -> navel. That doesn't prove anything, though. Like I was telling axon, my ex-girlfriend had short legs, so she'd come up with some weird results. Also, my ratio isn't the golden ratio everyone seems to think everyone will come up with. You'd think with such precision in their numbers they could actually be accurate.

What I'm saying is it's obvious that there are certain proportions the human body usually adheres to. There is no single number that works for every person, or even for one person. It's nonsense.

Page 4 of 7 First 1234567 Last