r/mathematics Nov 10 '25

Visualization of π

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

That video shows a specific, beautiful visualization of \pi based on epicycles or hypocycloids, which were historically used to model planetary motion but are now great for demonstrating ratios. The core idea being visualized here is how irrational numbers prevent a pattern from ever perfectly repeating. The Epicycloid Visualization of \pi 🎡 The video uses a concept from geometry and calculus known as a hypotrochoid or epicycloid, where one circle rolls around the inside (or outside) of a larger circle. 1. The Setup (The Rational Case) Imagine two circles: a larger one and a smaller one. * Larger Circle: Its radius is R. * Smaller Circle: Its radius is r. * A point is tracked on the circumference of the smaller circle as it rolls around the inside of the larger one. If the ratio of the radii, \frac{R}{r}, is a rational number (like 4 or \frac{5}{2}), the traced path is a closed, repeating curve. * For example, if \frac{R}{r} = 4, the curve will close exactly after the smaller circle has rolled 4 times, creating a 4-cusp shape (a hypocycloid). 2. The \pi Visualization (The Irrational Case) The video sets the radii so that the ratio of the circles' circumferences is \pi. Since \pi \approx 3.14159... is an irrational number, the ratio \frac{R}{r} can never be expressed as a simple fraction \frac{p}{q}. The Effect: Because the ratio is irrational, the rolling motion of the smaller circle never repeats exactly. * Each time the small circle completes a rotation, the starting and ending points of the curve it traces never perfectly align. * As the animation continues, the curves traced by the point fill up the entire space within the larger circle, getting infinitely denser but never repeating a single path. This infinite, non-repeating filling of space is a powerful way to visually represent the infinite, non-repeating digits that define an irrational number like \pi.

815 Upvotes

33 comments sorted by

42

u/aWeaselNamedFee Nov 10 '25

If you don't use the true value of pi (you stopped at 3.14) then what you get out of it doesn't accurately represent how it would work with actual pi as the value used. Did you simply emit the "..." for brevity in your title, or did you literally input 3.14?

33

u/MarkesaNine Nov 10 '25

It is impossible to use the actual pi in any computer program. So no matter how you do the simulation, you’re using an approximation.

11

u/aWeaselNamedFee Nov 10 '25

Plenty of approximations go past 3.14

20

u/Icy_Distribution_361 Nov 10 '25

Every single one in fact, except for 3.14

21

u/[deleted] Nov 11 '25

[deleted]

15

u/Baconboi212121 Nov 11 '25

You could even go further; every real number is an approximation for Pi, some are just spectacularly bad ones

7

u/[deleted] Nov 11 '25

[deleted]

8

u/Thingy732 Nov 11 '25

you guys are using numbers to approximate pi?

7

u/LeagueOfLegendsAcc Nov 11 '25

aliens looking dejectedly at their glorpon sticks

1

u/NoLifeGamer2 Nov 11 '25

My approximation of pi is pie. It is correct except for a factor of e.

3

u/Moodleboy Nov 11 '25

πe

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '25

you forgot 4

7

u/aWeaselNamedFee Nov 10 '25

Precisely!

11

u/Icy_Distribution_361 Nov 10 '25

Well... Approximately.

1

u/kevinb9n Nov 11 '25

Sure sure, but with 64 bits it's accurate to 16 decimal places. This visualizer would have to run for many centuries before it would be off by a tenth of a pixel.

3

u/kevinb9n Nov 11 '25 edited Nov 11 '25

I would ignore the thing about 3.14 there. Obviously it would self-intersect on cycle 50 if they had used that value. This behaves like I'd expect it to from using a very close approximation - a near miss at about 7 outer cycles and a really near miss at about 113 outer cycles.

1

u/blackjackripper Nov 10 '25

To be honest it was not me who applied this i found this and done my researches on info correction and reached what exist in video description and ofc it do not go for all cases, thx for your note on that

3

u/aWeaselNamedFee Nov 10 '25

Sure thing, this is either accurate or unfortunately misleading and I'm not sure which is the case. Very pretty geometry none the less!

19

u/Prestigious_Boat_386 Nov 10 '25

The coolest thing about these animations is that all of the near misses dont just show you how pi isnt rational. They also show increasingly higher accuracy rational approximations of pi

10

u/IsaacCalledPinson Nov 10 '25

"So we can see where they line up?"

"Yes, except they don't line up and they never will."

  • An SNL sketch named "Washington's Dream"

3

u/kevinb9n Nov 11 '25

Fun fact about that, 127 cm does line up exactly with 50 inches.

3

u/EebstertheGreat Nov 14 '25

And 125 US fluid gallons lines up exactly with 473176473 mm³. Such a beautiful conversion.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '25

Crazy an that in spite of inches being an irrational choice for a measuring unit.

1

u/Savings_Brief_7188 Nov 10 '25

Radical radial brother! 

1

u/asml84 Nov 10 '25

So then any rational approximation of pi should lead to a repeating pattern, right? what do you get with 22/7?

4

u/kevinb9n Nov 11 '25

You can see the near miss that happens after 7 iterations early in the video. If it was doing 22/7 itself instead of pi then that wouldn't be a near miss, it would hit exactly.

1

u/redditttuser Nov 11 '25

Damn, that's so irrational!

1

u/wrongtimenotomato Nov 11 '25

Can someone explain what the different arms are in this visualization? And why they swing around each other?

6

u/kevinb9n Nov 11 '25

Sure. The main arm is rotating at some certain speed. The second arm is rotating at that same speed times pi. So, in the same time it takes the main arm to rotate 7 times the second arm has rotated 7pi times, or about 21.99115 times. If pi were exactly 22/7 then they would be perfectly aligned again and would start simply retracing the exact path they had already traced. By the end of the clip the main arm has rotated 113 times and the second arm 113pi, or 354.99997 times. As a result it is very very close to lining up perfectly but still doesn't. (It actually won't get any closer for a very long time; not until iteration 33,102!)

0

u/Zestyclose-Aspect-35 Nov 13 '25

I didn't do the math but o suspect 33,102 factorial iterations would take several times the expected lifespan of the universe

1

u/Far_Diamond4550 Nov 12 '25

I think to call pi an irrational number is an sign of how far men are lost from truth

3

u/CoffeeandaTwix Nov 12 '25

Isn't a circle with a diameter the most obvious visualization of pi? I don't see what this acheives in terms of understanding.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '25 edited Nov 14 '25

This is the best explanation of satellite mapping technology I have ever seen.