[JAVA] Calculate Pi!

[Joe]

Yes! A very advanced mathematical..tool?

This is the brainchild of five straight hours of pondering the problem, resulting in 5 hours of detention to be served starting tomorrow, for insubordination when teachers told me to get to work.

public class CalculatePi {
  public static void main(String args[]) {
    System.out.println("Pi: " + 4 * Math.atan(1));
  }
}

I also managed to port it to Visual Basic after another three hours of work, mostly debugging.
Public Sub Main
    Call MsgBox(4 * Atan(1))
End Sub

You may use this in your programs for a royalty of 50cents per copy sold.

[Sidoh]

Wow, your teachers suck. -_-

[Newby]

How about pi?

Or (22 / 7) (isn't that supposed to be pi?)

[Joe]

Wow, your teachers suck. -_-

We didn't learn that in school son.

Newby, I doubt it. Just a sec..

EDIT -
No, but its close. 22/7=3.1428571

[deadly7]

How about pi?

Or (22 / 7) (isn't that supposed to be pi?)

I think it is.
Pi = the world's gayest number.

[Joe]

22/7 is 3.1428571. Pi is 3.141592 something.

EDIT -
deadly, actually, that would be infinity (the gayest number). At least you can add/subtract/multiply/divide something by pi and get something not pi.

Also, pi is not only a number, but the 16th letter in the greek alphabet.



STUPID -
Hm, are they going to start with hurricane gamma next year? I can just see it now "Hurricane Pi is coming!"

[Sidoh]

How about pi?

Or (22 / 7) (isn't that supposed to be pi?)

I think it is.
Pi = the world's gayest number.

No, it's not.  It's moderately close, but using a Pi constant on calculators is a lot more accurate than using 22/7.

[Joe]

How about pi?

Or (22 / 7) (isn't that supposed to be pi?)

I think it is.
Pi = the world's gayest number.

No, it's not. It's moderately close, but using a Pi constant on calculators is a lot more accurate than using 22/7.

Anyone here work at TI and know how that's done? I figure its probably 4*ATan(1) rounded to the nearest millionth or something.

[Sidoh]

Anyone here work at TI and know how that's done? I figure its probably 4*ATan(1) rounded to the nearest millionth or something.

How what's done?  Calculating Pi?  There's a stored constant for Pi in all TI model's I've ever used.  Calculating it is pretty dumb.  Plus, all TI model's I've seen round to the nearest 10th digit (or at least that's what I understand).

[trust]

infinity isn't a number.

I've debated it with my math teacher and that's what she says.

[iago]

Infinity isn't a number.  But, then, neither is 0, so eh?

And by the way, taking the atan of 1 isn't calculating Pi, since the forumla for arctan uses Pi.  It's like "calculating" the constant C in a=bC by setting b to 1.  You aren't calculating anything.  The best way to calculate Pi in Java is Math.PI, I believe.

To actually calculate Pi, it's an infinite formula.  You can keep going and it gets more and more accurate the longer you iterate, until you run out of room in your variable (unless you're using java.Math.BigDecimal, then you can go forever). 

I believe this is it:

[MyndFyre]

What is that, the sequence of squares over odd numbers (roughly)?

[iago]

Yeah, that sounds right.  It looks pretty recursive, and the deeper you go the more accurate you get.  Of course, on computess, double's are only see accurate in the first place, so..

[d&q]

Infinity isn't a number, its a concept.

I've used this formula for Pi since 'round sixth grade:

[Quik]

If infinity isn't a number, is e? I recently had a conversation with my math teacher about "the number e" (Euler's number)

[Newby]

If infinity isn't a number, is e? I recently had a conversation with my math teacher about "the number e" (Euler's number)

e isn't infinite. It comes really close, seeing as how it's a constant.

[Quik]

If infinity isn't a number, is e? I recently had a conversation with my math teacher about "the number e" (Euler's number)

e isn't infinite. It comes really close, seeing as how it's a constant.

I know it's not infinte, it's irrational. (1 + 1/n)^n as n -> infinity

The question is, do you consider "e" to be a number? I believe it is, just an irrational one.

[Ender]

How about pi?

Or (22 / 7) (isn't that supposed to be pi?)

Pi is an irrational number, meaning that it can't be expressed as int / int.

The question is, do you consider "e" to be a number? I believe it is, just an irrational one.

Of course it is. We say the word number when we refer to "real numbers." And irrational numbers are a subset of real numbers.

Infinity isn't a number simply because we can't put numbers to it. It's a concept that helps us understand things. e is used in calculations, however. It's paramount in calculus. Why? Derivative of ln x = 1/x.

[d&q]

Yes, because it can be expressed as an irrational number.

[Edit]: Whoops, didn't see Ender's post.

[Edit #2]: Actually, sometimes I refer to imaginary numbers as "a number". By imaginary, I mean a complex number with a coefficient of i.

[Quik]

Of course it is. We say the word number when we refer to "real numbers." And irrational numbers are a subset of real numbers.

This is my point. Usually, people refer to it as a letter.

[d&q]

But it can be expressed as an irrational number, which is what I think counts. I also view i as a number, because it can be defined as the square root of -1.

[Sidoh]

If infinity isn't a number, is e? I recently had a conversation with my math teacher about "the number e" (Euler's number)

Yes, it's just as much of a constant as Pi is.

You can round Pi and e; you can't round infinite.

[Joe]

rounded to the nearest tenth is

Joe > Sidoh.

EDIT -
Nice, google </3 hotlinkers.

[Sidoh]

rounded to the nearest tenth is

Joe > Sidoh.

EDIT -
Nice, google </3 hotlinkers.

That's not rounding.  It's like symbolizing a universe with a dot.  Don't be an idiot, Joe.  I guess that kind of is asking a lot of you though, isn't it?

[MyndFyre]

If infinity isn't a number, is e? I recently had a conversation with my math teacher about "the number e" (Euler's number)

Yes.  e is a constant, infinity is not; for example, you could have one infinity larger than another.  Suppose:
sum[i = 0 to infinity] i / i² + 1.  Obviously i summed from 0 to infinity would be infinity, but the denominator's infinity is larger, and so we call the series convergent.

[iago]

In case there's some question about whether i is a number:
- We know that x + 1 = 0 is a valid equation; however, if we only had regular "counting" numbers available, we couldn't solve it.  We would have to invent a concept of negative numbers, which we are all comfortable with .
- Then we have the equation x² + 1 = 0.  It also had no solution without inventing the concept of imaginary numbers.
--> Imaginary numbers are negative numbers are both pretty abstract.  We can't see or touch either, but they seem to be numbers in a purely mathematical sense. 

Ok, so the next question is, is 0 a number?  It seems that 0 is just a placeholder.  Doesn't "0" represent the lack of a number, not an actual number?

If 0 is a number, is it even or odd?  What is the definition of even and odd that shows that 0 is even? Can it be shown that 0 also fits into the odd category?

Is the 0 in 2304 the same as the number 0?  How are they related?

What is x in 2x = 6? Is it a number?  It doesn't look like a number, but to anybody with more than a few years of math experience, it's immediately obvious that it's 3.  If x can be considered a number, is it possible that our definition of numbers isn't as clear as we think?

What about x in 0x = 6? Is x still a number?  Any number, real, rational, irrational, imaginary, etc. can be place in front of the x.  But when the number 0 is, x no longer has a value.  It seems like 0 isn't behaving as a number here. 

Or, is there a case for considering 1/0 to be a number?  Is the result infinite or undefined? Why? Is there a case for looking at it either way? 

I think this is the most important question of all:
How are 0 and infinite related?  Think about how to get the result of infinite in a finite equation.  The only way to get it is to use a 0.  This means that 0 and infinite are related, and that infinite can be derived from 0.  Because, as it was already discussed here, infinite isn't a number, does that show that 0 isn't either? 


By the way, most of these questions were inspired by or ripped from a variety of sources.  I post them here to provoke discussion, and maybe we'll all learn something.

[Sidoh]

In case there's some question about whether i is a number:
- We know that x + 1 = 0 is a valid equation; however, if we only had regular "counting" numbers available, we couldn't solve it.  We would have to invent a concept of negative numbers, which we are all comfortable with .
- Then we have the equation x² + 1 = 0.  It also had no solution without inventing the concept of imaginary numbers.
--> Imaginary numbers are negative numbers are both pretty abstract.  We can't see or touch either, but they seem to be numbers in a purely mathematical sense. 

Ok, so the next question is, is 0 a number?  It seems that 0 is just a placeholder.  Doesn't "0" represent the lack of a number, not an actual number?

If 0 is a number, is it even or odd?  What is the definition of even and odd that shows that 0 is even? Can it be shown that 0 also fits into the odd category?

Is the 0 in 2304 the same as the number 0?  How are they related?

What is x in 2x = 6? Is it a number?  It doesn't look like a number, but to anybody with more than a few years of math experience, it's immediately obvious that it's 3.  If x can be considered a number, is it possible that our definition of numbers isn't as clear as we think?

What about x in 0x = 6? Is x still a number?  Any number, real, rational, irrational, imaginary, etc. can be place in front of the x.  But when the number 0 is, x no longer has a value.  It seems like 0 isn't behaving as a number here. 

Or, is there a case for considering 1/0 to be a number?  Is the result infinite or undefined? Why? Is there a case for looking at it either way? 

I think this is the most important question of all:
How are 0 and infinite related?  Think about how to get the result of infinite in a finite equation.  The only way to get it is to use a 0.  This means that 0 and infinite are related, and that infinite can be derived from 0.  Because, as it was already discussed here, infinite isn't a number, does that show that 0 isn't either? 


By the way, most of these questions were inspired by or ripped from a variety of sources.  I post them here to provoke discussion, and maybe we'll all learn something.

Those are some pretty interesting points.

  It's funny how life is.  I used to hate math--it was my least favorite subject.  Just this year, I really started enjoying it.  It probably started when I showed some respect for the potential it had to do anything any other "tool" humans have.

[d&q]

In case there's some question about whether i is a number:
- We know that x + 1 = 0 is a valid equation; however, if we only had regular "counting" numbers available, we couldn't solve it.  We would have to invent a concept of negative numbers, which we are all comfortable with .
- Then we have the equation x² + 1 = 0.  It also had no solution without inventing the concept of imaginary numbers.
--> Imaginary numbers are negative numbers are both pretty abstract.  We can't see or touch either, but they seem to be numbers in a purely mathematical sense. 

My argument for both infinity and i is their placement in the number system.

Number System:

All  Numbers-
      Imaginary Numbers- Numbers using the quantity i[/i(Complex Numbers). i defined as being the square root of -1.
      Real Numbers- A number that can be expressed on a number line.
           Irrational Numbers- A number that cannot be written as a result of the calculation: a/b.
           Rational Numbers- Can be written as a result of the calculation: a/b. This includes repeating decimals, such as 5/7 or 1/3.
                Integer- A number that is in the set of Natural numbers, 0, and the negatives of the natural numbers.
                    Whole Number- A number is in the set of Natural numbers, and 0.
                    Natural Number- A number in the set [1, 2, 3, 4, ...]

This is by no means the entire set of numbers, just what I think of when I thinking about what a particular value is. Since i fits, it's a number, and since ∞ does not, it is not a number.
               

Ok, so the next question is, is 0 a number?  It seems that 0 is just a placeholder.  Doesn't "0" represent the lack of a number, not an actual number?

I agree that zero is a lack of a number, but for practical uses, we have to regard it as a whole number.

If 0 is a number, is it even or odd?  What is the definition of even and odd that shows that 0 is even? Can it be shown that 0 also fits into the odd category?

An even number is a number that can be expressed as (2*x). Seeing that 2*0=0, 0 is even.

Is the 0 in 2304 the same as the number 0?  How are they related?

The 0 in 2304, means that in base 10, the second place, which is 10^1, has no value. 0 used in that text means that in whatever place it is, regardless of base, it means that that particular place has no value.

What is x in 2x = 6? Is it a number?  It doesn't look like a number, but to anybody with more than a few years of math experience, it's immediately obvious that it's 3.  If x can be considered a number, is it possible that our definition of numbers isn't as clear as we think?

x in 2x=6 is a variable. It is a symbol used to represent a quantity. In this case however, the hidden value "x", is 3. Which is a number.

What about x in 0x = 6? Is x still a number?  Any number, real, rational, irrational, imaginary, etc. can be place in front of the x.  But when the number 0 is, x no longer has a value.  It seems like 0 isn't behaving as a number here.

In this case, x cannot be defined, as we cannot divide by zero. 

Or, is there a case for considering 1/0 to be a number?  Is the result infinite or undefined? Why? Is there a case for looking at it either way?

I like to view it in baby terms. Lets say we have "1" of something. If we divide it upon 0 people, has it been divided at all, or has it been divided to 0 people, but just in unknown quantities? I had to look this up, and this is what wikipedia said:

Division: 0 / x = 0, for nonzero x. But x / 0 is undefined, because 0 has no multiplicative inverse, a consequence of the previous rule. For positive x, as y in x / y approaches zero from positive values, its quotient increases toward positive infinity, but as y approaches zero from negative values, the quotient increases toward negative infinity. The different quotients confirms that division by zero is undefined.

I think this is the most important question of all:
How are 0 and infinite related?  Think about how to get the result of infinite in a finite equation.  The only way to get it is to use a 0.  This means that 0 and infinite are related, and that infinite can be derived from 0.  Because, as it was already discussed here, infinite isn't a number, does that show that 0 isn't either? 

The only possible way I could think to produce ∞ from an equation would be x*0=0. But as that is undefined, I do not see any other way.

---------------

Whew! That was long post  .

[Joe]

Sweet, I sparked a nice conversation by being an idiot!

[rabbit]

Also, pi is not only a number, but the 16th letter in the greek alphabet.

It's also a function.  Also, it's another (different) function.  So, pi is officially a letter, number, and two functions.  Hrm.

[Sidoh]

Sweet, I sparked a nice conversation by being an idiot!

You're actually pretty good at that, I've noticed.

[d&q]

rabbit: What do you mean Pi itself is a function?

[Joe]

rabbit: What do you mean Pi itself is a function?

Yeah, I don't quite get that either.

[AntiVirus]

         Rational Numbers- Can be written as a result of the calculation: a/b. This includes repeating decimals, such as 5/7 or 1/3.

I may be wrong.  But, don't raitonal numbers have numbers that repeat after teh decimal?  Such as .3333333 ect.  But, 5/7 doesn't fit the description, so did you mean to put that in irrational?  Or am I just wrong?

[iago]

         Rational Numbers- Can be written as a result of the calculation: a/b. This includes repeating decimals, such as 5/7 or 1/3.

I may be wrong.  But, don't raitonal numbers have numbers that repeat after teh decimal?  Such as .3333333 ect.  But, 5/7 doesn't fit the description, so did you mean to put that in irrational?  Or am I just wrong?

You're just wrong :-P

Rational numbers have numbers that repeat, as well as numbers that terminate (I forget what they're called), an integers, whole numbers, and natural numbers. 

Irrational numbers contain all rational numbers, and everything below it. 

[d&q]

Haha, 5/7 does repeat  , there is as cool little pattern to know what any x/7 repeating decimal is.

@iago, Actually, I believe irrational numbers do not contain rational numbers, as irrational numbers cannot be written as "a/b".

[MyndFyre]

@iago, Actually, I believe irrational numbers do not contain rational numbers, as irrational numbers cannot be written as "a/b".

You are correct, Real numbers are the set of rational numbers plus irrationational numbers, like the set of all numbers contains real and imaginary numbers, whcih are mutually exclusive. 

[iago]

@iago, Actually, I believe irrational numbers do not contain rational numbers, as irrational numbers cannot be written as "a/b".

You are correct, Real numbers are the set of rational numbers plus irrationational numbers, like the set of all numbers contains real and imaginary numbers, whcih are mutually exclusive. 

Ah, you're right, I was mixing up irrational and real.  Stupid mistake

[rabbit]

The first pi function (lowercase pi, as we usually see it), is the number of primes less than the argument.
IE:


The second pi function (uppercase pi) is the expression for the process of Eratosthenes' Sieve (the multiplication of all factors of the argument).
IE:

[MyndFyre]

The first pi function (lowercase pi, as we usually see it), is the number of primes less than the argument.
IE:


The second pi function (uppercase pi) is the expression for the process of Eratosthenes' Sieve (the multiplication of all factors of the argument).
IE:

That seems off.  Number of primes less than 60 is not 46.7 billion.  They are: 2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,27,31,37,41,43,47,53,57.

The multiplication of all positive integral factors of 12 = 1 * 2 * 3 * 4 * 6 = 144.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you.

[rabbit]

I got it backwards!!  Whoops....fixing...

Fixed.  Even still, you should have noticed it was backwards considering I said the case of pi...and then had the different cases.

[iago]

But in any case, neither of those has anything to do with the constant Pi, doe they?

[rabbit]

Sure they do!  They are all represented by the Greek letter Pi.

[Tomcat]

e is like pi, I believe.  My ti-83 says it's approximately 2.71828182.  If by "like infinity" you mean not a number, then no, it's a number.  It's more like Pi in that they are both irrational numbers.  I would, however, relate it more closely to phi (phi is approximately 1.618...), because both were discovered frequently in nature.  Phi is a very interresting number.

-EDIT-

The only possible way I could think to produce ∞ from an equation would be x*0=0. But as that is undefined, I do not see any other way.

x*0 equals 0.  It's defined as 0, isn't it?  anything * 0 is 0, or so I thought.

[Sidoh]

e is like pi, I believe.  My ti-83 says it's approximately 2.71828182.  If by "like infinity" you mean not a number, then no, it's a number.  It's more like Pi in that they are both irrational numbers.  I would, however, relate it more closely to phi (phi is approximately 1.618...), because both were discovered frequently in nature.  Phi is a very interresting number.

-EDIT-

The only possible way I could think to produce ∞ from an equation would be x*0=0. But as that is undefined, I do not see any other way.

x*0 equals 0.  It's defined as 0, isn't it?  anything * 0 is 0, or so I thought.

I think those things have already been mentioned. 

x * 0 = 0 is one way to think of infinitie, but since you can't devide by zero due to mathematical laws, it's undefined, not infinite.

[Tomcat]

Yeah I saw something I knew about, and decided to go ahead and post about it.  I didn't read past page 2.  Oops 

[Sidoh]

By the way, e is more formally defined as one of the following (I learned it in Calculus about two months ago, but I'm ripping the images from Wikipedia):

[MyndFyre]

I don't see how e can be the sum of 1/n! from 0 to infinity.  1/0! = 1/0 = undefined.

[d&q]

Wrong  ! 0! = 1.

[Sidoh]

Wrong  ! 0! = 1.

Hehe, yep

[MyndFyre]

Wrong  ! 0! = 1.

Oh yeah that's right.  *reaches back 3 years* I remember arguing over that with my calculus teacher.  He won.

[Sidoh]

Oh yeah that's right.  *reaches back 3 years* I remember arguing over that with my calculus teacher.  He won.

Haha.  I don't think I ever remember learning the reasoning behind it.  I just remember learning 0! = 1.

[d&q]

Basically, its that you can only arrange nothing in one way.

[Sidoh]

Basically, its that you can only arrange nothing in one way.

Makes perfect sense.

[iago]

By the way, here's another math problem: Are there more natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...) or integers (...., -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ....)?

For every natural number x, there are two integers, x and -x.  So there are twice as many integers as naturals numbers, plus 1 (for 0).  Right?

[Hitmen]

By the way, here's another math problem: Are there more natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...) or integers (...., -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ....)?

For every natural number x, there are two integers, x and -x.  So there are twice as many integers as naturals numbers, plus 1 (for 0).  Right?

Well, there's an infinate number for both, one just gets to infinity slightly faster

[rabbit]

Actually, if either could reach infinity, neither would be faster.

[d&q]

There are varying levels of infinity. Numerically, as in counting from 1, 2 ,3, 4 etc, they are infinity, but cardinally, as in {1, 2, 3, ...}, integers are greater. I believe they are alaph numbers..

[Edit]: Whoops, Aleph* Numbers

[Sidoh]

No number set will ever reach infinite.  Infinite isn't a value, it's a concept.

[d&q]

Not reach infinite, be infinite. 

[iago]

So they're both infinite, but one has twice as many values?

And by the way, you are absolutely right:

There are varying levels of infinity. Numerically, as in counting from 1, 2 ,3, 4 etc, they are infinity, but cardinally, as in {1, 2, 3, ...}, integers are greater. I believe they are alaph numbers..

[Edit]: Whoops, Aleph* Numbers

Rational, whole, natural, etc., are all "countable" infinite sets.  So is Real, apparently, but we haven't proven that one yet. 

It's still neat to think that there are the same "number" of even numbers as even+odd numbers. 

[Sidoh]

Not reach infinite, be infinite. 

Actually, if either could reach infinity, neither would be faster.

[MyndFyre]

We're not talking about whether either could reach infinity, we're talking about the value of the count of numbers in the series.  Integers have 2 x (count of whole numbers) + 1 items.  Assuming (count of whole numbers) is infinity, the count of integers is 2x(whole numbers count infinity) + 1, which makes it a bigger infinity.

If you put (whole numbers count infinity) / (count of integers infinty) you'd get a value infinitesimally approaching 0.5 from the left.

[Sidoh]

Aah, I see what you're saying now. 

[iago]

We're not talking about whether either could reach infinity, we're talking about the value of the count of numbers in the series.  Integers have 2 x (count of whole numbers) + 1 items.  Assuming (count of whole numbers) is infinity, the count of integers is 2x(whole numbers count infinity) + 1, which makes it a bigger infinity.

If you put (whole numbers count infinity) / (count of integers infinty) you'd get a value infinitesimally approaching 0.5 from the left.

Aha, you are correct; however, look at this mapping:

N| 1 2  3 4  5 6  7 ....
------------------------
Z| 0 1 -1 2 -2 3 -3 ....

Assuming we continue doing that to infinity, we can convert any natural number to an integer:
Z

• = N
• / 2   --> if x is even and not 0

Z

• = -(N
• / 2) + 1 --> if x is odd and not 0

Z

• = 0 --> if x = 0

So, for every integer Z

• , there's a corresponding natural number N
• , and vice versa.  So there aren't twice as many, since there is a 1:1 mapping.  Despite the fact that for every natural number, there's two integers, there's still a one-to-one mapping. 

Isn't infinity great?

[MyndFyre]

Perhaps, but there's also a 2:1 mapping!

[Joe]

e is like pi, I believe. My ti-83 says it's approximately 2.71828182. If by "like infinity" you mean not a number, then no, it's a number. It's more like Pi in that they are both irrational numbers. I would, however, relate it more closely to phi (phi is approximately 1.618...), because both were discovered frequently in nature. Phi is a very interresting number.

-EDIT-

The only possible way I could think to produce ∞ from an equation would be x*0=0. But as that is undefined, I do not see any other way.

x*0 equals 0. It's defined as 0, isn't it? anything * 0 is 0, or so I thought.

I think those things have already been mentioned.

x * 0 = 0 is one way to think of infinitie, but since you can't devide by zero due to mathematical laws, it's undefined, not infinite.

Technically, dividing something means splitting it into equal piles. A good way of thinking of this is dealing cards. How do you deal cards to 0 people?
52/0 = 0R52 (you didn't give anyone any cards) = 1.

Division by 0 equals 1.

[Sidoh]

Technically, dividing something means splitting it into equal piles. A good way of thinking of this is dealing cards. How do you deal cards to 0 people?
52/0 = 0R52 (you didn't give anyone any cards) = 1.

Division by 0 equals 1.

No, division by 0 = undefined.  Try it on any calculator.  That's why there's an error in games and things of this nature that reads "Error: Cannot divide by 0."

Lern 2 do math

[iago]

e is like pi, I believe. My ti-83 says it's approximately 2.71828182. If by "like infinity" you mean not a number, then no, it's a number. It's more like Pi in that they are both irrational numbers. I would, however, relate it more closely to phi (phi is approximately 1.618...), because both were discovered frequently in nature. Phi is a very interresting number.

-EDIT-

The only possible way I could think to produce ∞ from an equation would be x*0=0. But as that is undefined, I do not see any other way.

x*0 equals 0. It's defined as 0, isn't it? anything * 0 is 0, or so I thought.

I think those things have already been mentioned.

x * 0 = 0 is one way to think of infinitie, but since you can't devide by zero due to mathematical laws, it's undefined, not infinite.

Technically, dividing something means splitting it into equal piles. A good way of thinking of this is dealing cards. How do you deal cards to 0 people?
52/0 = 0R52 (you didn't give anyone any cards) = 1.

Division by 0 equals 1.

By your example, you'd be giving out cards forever, because you'd be sitting there with the deck giving one to each of the 0 people.  So your deck would never lose a card.  So it would work out to infinity, or undefined, depending on how long you sit around, I suppose..

[Sidoh]

By your example, you'd be giving out cards forever, because you'd be sitting there with the deck giving one to each of the 0 people.  So your deck would never lose a card.  So it would work out to infinity, or undefined, depending on how long you sit around, I suppose..

Hehe, exactly.

[rabbit]

e is like pi, I believe. My ti-83 says it's approximately 2.71828182. If by "like infinity" you mean not a number, then no, it's a number. It's more like Pi in that they are both irrational numbers. I would, however, relate it more closely to phi (phi is approximately 1.618...), because both were discovered frequently in nature. Phi is a very interresting number.

-EDIT-

The only possible way I could think to produce ∞ from an equation would be x*0=0. But as that is undefined, I do not see any other way.

x*0 equals 0. It's defined as 0, isn't it? anything * 0 is 0, or so I thought.

I think those things have already been mentioned.

x * 0 = 0 is one way to think of infinitie, but since you can't devide by zero due to mathematical laws, it's undefined, not infinite.

Technically, dividing something means splitting it into equal piles. A good way of thinking of this is dealing cards. How do you deal cards to 0 people?
52/0 = 0R52 (you didn't give anyone any cards) = 1.

Division by 0 equals 1.

Division is more accurately described as "division among/between".  IE: Division by 1 means "division among 1", and thus the source remains whole, as it all goes to 1 "thing".