There is much more to Syπ than meets the eye.
I would like to start by thanking John Walsh for his continued efforts and contributions to understanding Syπ. Together we have been able to make some truly remarkable and interesting discoveries.
There are those who will be hard to convince regardless of how compelling the evidence is. All I can say to these people is simply run the numbers. The math does not lie. There is something going on here and there are far too many correlations to ignore.
We have been working at reducing and simplifying the Syπ Equation into a simple function as much as possible for a few days now. Some of this work has been covered in a previous post.
We further established by revisiting the Turtle Pi problem that you do not in fact need pi to approximate the circumference of a circle. I also noted numerous times that Syπ(162) produces the closest value of Pi. This can further be improved by using fractions/decimals.
So we took the SyPi Equation and subbed in all the values leaving only p as the input for position.
This was further simplified by John who produced the following function.
This version of the Syπ Equation is extremely interesting and came with many unexpected results. It is no longer recognizable but does in fact work the exact same with one major difference. Everything is opposite. The closest value to pi is now -162 and all of the mapped behavior which took place in the negative positions of Syπ 3.0.0 now happen in positive positions.
John also further refined how to calculate the precise position of pi in the SyPi Gradient.
Of course like every other time I see pi used in an equation I have to try Sy πand compare results. After more than two years of researching Syπ, both testing and comparing to pi every step of the way I have yet to be as surprised by a result as I am with this one.
In every other case as demonstrated above Syπ and Pi have been extremely close. There have been a few tests where Syπ has resulted in more accurate results but the results have never contrasted like this before.
Like every other time I start with position one. ρ=1
We get the expected position 1 pi value of the gradient. But when I substitute pi with SyPi with John’s Pi position equation we get the following.
Calculating the precise position of Pi using Syπ literally mirrors the position number but with a very small difference. Further if I set position ρ=0.5 we get p = 0.5000000000162. Our friend 162 showing up yet again. When position is set to 0 then we get exactly zero.
Using John’s equation again I headed over to WolframAlpha. I punched in the SyPi equation with the -162.005531… for the position and was able to match pi to 131 decimal places. What’s more is it turns out we can match as many as we want.
Syπ(-162.005531…) = 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706798214808651328230664709384460955
Pi = 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706798214808651328230664709384460955
There is still so much to learn and figure out but this keeps getting more and more interesting.
Again, thank you John for all your help.
UPDATE: I found a order of operations issue which is what was causing the reversed behavior. The error slipped in when we were simplifying the equation.
Syπ(162.005531…) = 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706798214808651328230664709384460955
Pi = 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706798214808651328230664709384460955
Stay tuned.
