Talk:Pi

Is there a place to put the first 100/1000 digits of pi in the article?

Might be a silly question, but given the article is about pi, shouldn't some parts of pi, like at least 100-1000 digits, be included somewhere? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

The actual digits of pi really aren't that notable. Human efforts to compute lots of digits are notable, and the practice of memorizing digits is notable. Both of these are covered in the article. ~2026-16209-89 (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe notability is only required to have a specific article about it. I'm asking if there is a place in the existing pi article where the digits can be put. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:43, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

This question has been asked several times over the past 2 decades. After discussion, the consensus has always been to not display more than 25 digits or so. Readers who want more digits can use any of the "external links" at the bottom of the article to get more digits. Noleander (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Did you try clicking the link in "(see OEIS: A000796)"? That page links to e.g. https://web.archive.org/web/20140225153300/http://www.exploratorium.edu/pi/pi_archive/Pi10-6.html –jacobolus (t) 01:39, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I don’t really think that it would be necessary to include over 20 digits of pi Cenchros Roseus (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The GIF makes the text difficult to read

It is very hard to read text with an animated GIF constantly moving in one's field of vision. The GIF ought to be moved down, at the very least.— chbarts (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you give more details... Are you saying the gif is covering up text? Or you saying the movement simply distracting? Gifs are fairly common on the Internet these days, I think most people are accustomed to seeing them in many websites and apps. Noleander (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

MOS:ANIMATION requires that animations either run shorter than five seconds and then stop (not loop), or have a control to stop them. They can be very distracting for some people, as the OP states. I have added a stop control, modeled after the one in Four-dimensional space and added there after a similar discussion, Talk:Four-dimensional space § Animation fails standards. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. While you are looking at this, I think it would be more explanatory if the animation ran just a bit slower - maybe 2/3 the speed. Currently it is all over before you have time to see what is happening. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:30, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

That's not something that's easy for me to do. Someone else more experienced in retiming animated gifs might find it easier. We do have several versions of this animation on commons including one with "slow" in its name but they all appear to run at the same speed. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I have had a go - if you open a gif with GIMP, each frame is a layer, and the duration is embedded in the name of the layer. Please see if you think this one would be better: https://imaginatorium.org/private/Pi-unrolled-720a.gif

I don't know how the animation controls work, but it might be better to have a non-looping version, with a "Replay" button. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

The point of MOS:ANIMATION is that some users of WP want to have video controls (stop/pause/replay) so they can proceed thru an informative video at their own pace. So MOS:ANIMATION specifies two options:

1. Decorative GIF - under 5 seconds: video controls not required
2. Informative GIF - over 5 seconds: video controls are required

The infoBox should have a catchy, decorative 5 second GIF: clean, tidy, no video controls. Optionally, the article can include a second, longer, informative version in the article body, with video controls

Can someone create a 5 second version of that GIF? Even if we don't use it in this article, it would be good to have a 5 sec version in Wiki Commons. Noleander (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't know about you but I would find a version of that gif that runs for five seconds and then stops to be incredibly annoying. I want to watch it repeatedly until I understand it, and five seconds is barely enough time for a single iteration. And repeating the same image twice in different versions, once to be decorative, is a waste of space and viewer attention, also highly annoying. What we have now is an informative gif with a control, meeting the requirements. Why do you think that controls must be omitted? And why do you think there should even be an infobox? (The sidebar navbox is not an infobox.) —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

"3.14159265358979323846264338327" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 3.14159265358979323846264338327 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 23 § Long PI redirects until a consensus is reached. Squawk7700 (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2026

I would like to add the Monte Carlo section a recent result from august 2025 that reads:

In 2026, two researchers generated an approximation of π using random numbers extracted as seven-digit chunks from a sample of 314 billion digits of π itself, reportedly the largest such sample used in this type of analysis. Their Monte Carlo analysis produced the approximation 3.141593, which matches the value of π when rounded to six decimal places, as expected from the method.Razeto, Alessandro; Rossi, Nicola (2026). "Can π generate itself? A Monte Carlo analysis of 314 trillion digits". arXiv:2608.06438 [math.GM]. {{cite arXiv}}: Unknown parameter |doi= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help) KRossi79 (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: This is a preprint that does not seem to be published. A fortiori, there is no reliably published WP:secondary source that discusses the result. So, this is what Wikipedia calls WP:Original research. Wikipedia policy is to not include such original research. D.Lazard (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Transcendence in the lead

@Jacobolus: You reverted (for other good reasons) to a version which attempts to explain "transcendental number" as "...it cannot be a solution of an algebraic equation involving only finite sums, products, powers, and integers." As you say, the polynomial version is more accurate; we all want accessibility, but the question is whether this is "accessible". I think this is a case where we have to make things as simple as possible, but not more so. In particular, what would anyone who does not already understand the answer make of this? Is the following not an algebraic equation involving only the things listed above?

e^ix + 1 = 0

I think the lead should either have a proper definition, or no definition at all, since it is (fairly well) explained in the section below. Imaginatorium (talk) 10:04, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps you can figure out who wrote the current version and when, and whether there was any discussion about it at the time. I think anyone who can immediately understand what "not a root of any non-zero polynomial with rational coefficients" probably already knows what the term transcendental number means, so that gloss is not really helping anyone. The point of an inline gloss is not to be a precise definition, but to give an idea of what the term means to someone who has never encountered it before. We want an article with as broad appeal and elementary subject as this one to be accessible to, say, a curious 12-year-old or a layperson who has never taken an algebra class. –jacobolus (t) 10:06, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

The 'Who Wrote That?' (Mediawiki) extension says part was by @Ovinus on 26 April 2022 with the edit summary "a more sensible version of the lead (see talk page comments)" and part by D.Lazard on 29 April 2022 with the edit summary " tentative to resolve the dispute on the talk page". Those probably refer to Talk:Pi/Archive 16#Transcendental improperly defined. NebY (talk) 10:25, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question - doesn't the equation above involve "only finite sums, products, powers, and integers"? Do you really think that the bright 12-year old would be able to understand anything about what "transcendental" means from the above description? I do not think you can understand what a transcendental number is without first understanding what an algebraic number is, and I do not think there exists an "accessible" way of doing this. It is vastly more complicated than for example rational vs irrational numbers, which you certainly can explain in an elementary way. I did look at the talk archives, and there have been several discussions about this. It seems that many people think it's perfectly ok to say something false (like "cannot be the root of an equation") if it looks less complicated than the truth. I don't agree. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

It occurs to me that we could make the formulation correct very easily, just by leaving out "powers", because the "powers" intended here are subsumed into "products". --Trovatore (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2026 (UTC)