Pi Approximation Day 2025: What is it and why is it celebrated?
Pi Approximation Day, also known as Casual Pi Day, is celebrated annually on July 22nd. The day recognises and appreciates the mathematical consonant of pi (π), which is known in various aspects of maths and science.
What is Pi
Approximation Day?
Image credits: Getty Images
Pi is a special unit in mathematics. Presenting the relationship between a circle's circumference and diameter, the ratio of the two is stated as a constant pi.
The symbol of π was first introduced in 1706 by William Jones, a British mathematician. However, it became famous and came to be widely used due to Leonhard Euler, a Swiss mathematician who helped popularise it in his work.
Why is Pi Approximation Day celebrated?
Pi Approximation Day is celebrated on July 22nd every year, as this date is special.
When you divide 22 by 7, you get 3.142857, a number that is very close to the actual value of pi, which is about 3.14159. Since 22/7 is a convenient and easy way to remember the value of pi, the day serves as a reminder of its value. This is why it is also called Casual Pi Day, a more relaxed way of celebrating the symbol without delving into the complex digits.
Pi Day, is usually celebrated on March 14th, as 3/14 is a more popular meaning of the mathematical consonant.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
This Could Be the Best Time to Trade Gold in 5 Years
IC Markets
Learn More
Undo
What is the
significance of Pi
(π)?
Image credits: Getty Images
The symbol of pi has existed for almost 4000 years. In ancient Babylon, people calculated the area of a circle by taking 3 times the square of its radius, making pi's value 3. A Babylonian tablet indicated the value of pi as 3.125, which is a close approximation. As per the Rhind Papyrus, ancient Egyptians calculated the area of a circle by a formula that gave the value of pi as 3.1605.
However, the first calculation of pi was completed by Archimedes of Syracuse, who is known as one of the greatest mathematicians of the ancient world.
He made use of Pythagoras' Theorem to find the areas of two regular polygons and reached a value approximation between 3 1/7 and 3 10/71.
After being introduced by Jones in 1706, mathematicians began using the symbol π for pi.
While for some, π has created a lot of difficulties in mathematical calculations, those who love the art of maths love the symbol. In both cases, it remains a vital and memorable symbol in the world of mathematics and the life of every student.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
THIS simple exercise may boost longevity; can add as many as 6 years!
A Copenhagen City Heart Study revealed that regular jogging significantly increases longevity. Men who jogged lived 6.2 years longer, while women gained 5.6 years. Living a whole life without diseases is every human being's dream. Longevity is not just about how many years you live; being healthy is also a crucial part of it. If you want to live longer and healthier, then exercise is non-negotiable. A study has shown that one type of exercise can dramatically increase life expectancy. A 2012 study led by researchers at the Copenhagen City Heart found that this exercise can add over five years to your life. The findings are published in Science Direct . Exercise and life expectancy (Pic courtesy: iStock) The study found that men who jogged regularly live 6.2 years longer, while women may get an additional 5.6 years. "The results of our research allow us to definitively answer the question of whether jogging is good for your health. We can say with certainty that regular jogging increases longevity. The good news is that you don't actually need to do that much to reap the benefits" Schnohr, chief cardiologist of the Copenhagen City Heart Study, said. Debates about the impact of jogging on health first came up in the 1970s when middle-aged men took an interest in the pastime. "After a few men died while out on a run, various newspapers suggested that jogging might be too strenuous for ordinary middle-aged people," Schnohr recalled. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like AirSense 11 – Smart tech for deep sleep ResMed Buy Now Undo The long-term study, which began in 1976, reviewed data from over 20,000 men and women aged 20 to 93. For the jogging sub-study, researchers compared mortality rates between 1,116 male joggers and 762 female joggers with non-joggers. The participants were asked to answer questions about the amount of time they spent jogging each week, and to rate their own perceptions of pace (defined as slow, average, and fast). "With participants having such a wide age span, we felt that a subjective scale of intensity was the most appropriate approach," Schnohr, who is based at Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, explained. The first data was collected between 1976 to 1978, the second from 1981 to 1983, the third from 1991 to 1994, and the fourth from 2001 to 2003. The participants were tracked using a unique ID number in the Danish Central Person Register. "These numbers have been key to the success of the study since they've allowed us to trace participants wherever they go," Schnohr added. What did they find There were 10,158 deaths among the non-joggers and 122 deaths among the joggers, in a follow-up period of a maximum of 35 years. The researchers found that the risk of death was reduced by 44% for male joggers and 44% for female joggers. Further data showed that jogging added 6.2 years of life in men and 5.6 years in women. The best outcomes were seen in people who jogged for one to two and a half hours every week, spread over two to three sessions, particularly at a slow or moderate pace. The researchers also noted that the pace really matters. The ideal pace can be achieved by striving to feel a little breathless. "You should aim to feel a little breathless, but not very breathless," he added. Jagdeep Dhankhar Resigns as Vice President on First Day of Parliament's Monsoon Session Jogging also improved oxygen uptake, increased insulin sensitivity, improved lipid profiles (raising HDL and lowering triglycerides), lowered blood pressure, reduced platelet aggregation, increased fibrinolytic activity, improved cardiac function, bone density, immune function, reduced inflammation markers, prevented obesity, and improves psychological function. "The improved psychological wellbeing may be down to the fact that people have more social interactions when they're out jogging," Schnohr said.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Trump's NASA budget cuts could compromise human safety, warn hundreds of agency employees in open letter
According to NASA scientists, impending budget cuts could jeopardise mission safety and open the door for another catastrophe similar to the Challenger disaster in 1986. According to Kyle Helson, a research scientist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre and the University of Maryland , "when you're talking about cuts that appear unstrategic and unthoroughly researched and not motivated by actual improvements in mission safety, then you start to get people worried," he told Megan Williams, guest host on If You Happen. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Technology Design Thinking others PGDM Finance Healthcare Product Management CXO Degree Public Policy MCA healthcare Operations Management Project Management Digital Marketing Leadership Data Science Data Science Data Analytics Cybersecurity MBA Artificial Intelligence Management Others Skills you'll gain: Duration: 12 Weeks MIT xPRO CERT-MIT XPRO Building AI Prod India Starts on undefined Get Details In an open letter, Helson joins 362 other NASA personnel, both past and present, who have expressed concern about "recent policies that have or threaten to waste public resources, compromise human safety, weaken national security, and undermine the core NASA mission." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Learn More - How Watching Videos Can Boost Your Income TheDaddest Undo NASA official Bethany Stevens downplayed the worries in an email to CBC. "NASA will always prioritise safety. Any cuts, including the one we're making voluntarily right now, will be made to safeguard roles that are vital to safety," she stated. Live Events US savings of $6 billion are being proposed President Donald Trump of the United States is proposing a 25% budget decrease for NASA overall, or around $6 billion US ($8.22 billion Cdn), and a 50% cut for the scientific research division. "President Trump has proposed billions of dollars for NASA science, demonstrating an ongoing commitment to communicating our scientific achievements," Stevens stated. According to Helson, that is radically dishonest but technically true. "That's like saying your bicycle is missing one wheel, but don't worry, you've still got another wheel," said the man. The Congress that controls NASA's budget has not yet approved Trump's cuts. However, a number of senior officials stated they will proceed with them regardless in audio that was leaked from a NASA town hall meeting last month. The leading Democrats on a House committee that is in charge of NASA's budget, Zoe Lofgren and Valerie P. Foushee, have stated that it would be "flatly illegal" and "offensive to our constitutional system" to impose the cuts too soon. NASA has been urged by the bipartisan committee to refrain from making the changes. Fears of retaliation Addressed to Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy, whom Trump named interim NASA administrator earlier this month, is the open letter known as The Voyager Declaration. Calls for comment were sent to NASA by Duffy's office. In particular, the declaration highlights worries that if NASA keeps going in this direction, current missions will be cancelled, important scientific data will be lost, international partners will be dropped, development programs will be discontinued, staffing will be completely cut, and safety precautions will be reduced. It comes after similar open letters were sent by employees of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the latter of which suspended 144 of the signatories. Similar retaliation is feared by NASA employees Only four signatories who currently work with NASA are willing to speak out on record, and about half of those who signed the letter did so anonymously, according to NIH and EPA representatives and Stand Up For Science, the group that organised the letter. Among those four, Helson claims that the only reason he feels comfortable speaking is because he works with NASA in collaboration with the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, which he claims allows him greater academic freedom than those who work directly for NASA. "A lot of my coworkers who are civil servants are very afraid right now, and so I want to use what I perceive to be my advantages in my position to speak out on their behalf," he stated. "People are afraid that they're going to lose their job." When CBC asked NASA if it would take revenge on the signatories to the letter, NASA did not answer. The letter is formatted as an act of "Formal Dissent," a reference to a NASA policy that gives staff members the right to voice their opinions on choices they feel are "not in the best interest of NASA." The New York Times claims that the policy was implemented in response to the fatal Challenger space shuttle disaster in 1986 and the Columbia space shuttle disaster in 2003, when some engineers' concerns were dismissed. All seven of the astronauts on board perished when the Challenger broke apart seconds into its ascent on January 28, 1986. On February 1, 2003, the seven-person crew of the Columbia perished when it broke apart during re-entry. Signatories to the letter express concern that the changes will affect other programs intended to avoid such tragedies. "The culture of organisational silence promoted at NASA over the last six months already represents a dangerous turn away from the lessons learnt following the Columbia disaster," the letter continues. The Official Declaration of Voyager sent by signatories of ex-NASA and NASA officials to NASA's Interim Administrator Duffy Dear Interim Administrator Duffy, In light of your recent appointment as Interim NASA Administrator, we bring to your attention recent policies that have or threaten to waste public resources, compromise human safety, weaken national security, and undermine the core NASA mission. We, the signatories of this letter, dissent from these policies, and raise these concerns because we believe strongly in the importance of NASA's mission, which we are dedicated to uphold. Major programmatic shifts at NASA must be implemented strategically so that risks are managed carefully. Instead, the last six months have seen rapid and wasteful changes which have undermined our mission and caused catastrophic impacts on NASA's workforce. We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political momentum over human safety, scientific advancement, and efficient use of public resources. These cuts are arbitrary and have been enacted in defiance of congressional appropriations law. The consequences for the agency and the country alike are dire. Main concerns raised by the officials 1) The officials oppose any modifications to NASA's Technical Authority capabilities that are motivated by factors other than mission assurance and safety. Already, the organisational quiet culture that NASA has fostered over the past six months is a risky departure from the lessons learnt in the wake of the Columbia tragedy. The Technical Authority system should only be altered to improve safety, not in anticipation of future budget cuts, as was proposed at the NASA Town Hall on June 25. 2) The officials oppose the termination of missions for which Congress has approved funds because it would permanently deprive the United States of its ability to operate both on Earth and in space. Operational spacecraft cannot be restarted after they are decommissioned. Furthermore, the next generation of vital observations could be lost if missions in development are cancelled. 3) Because indiscriminate cuts to NASA's scientific and aeronautics research would deprive the American people of the special public benefit that NASA offers, the officials oppose their implementation. Fundamental space science, aviation, and environmental stewardship research are fundamentally governmental tasks that the private sector cannot and will not undertake. Additionally, NASA promotes national security by ensuring that the United States maintains its leadership in science and technology, and it generates economic activity that roughly triples the return on investment. 4) Because NASA's non-strategic staffing reductions will compromise the agency's primary mission, the officials oppose them. In the process of terminating, resigning, or retiring early thousands of NASA civil servants have taken with them highly specialised, irreplaceable knowledge that is essential to NASA's mission. 5) The officials oppose NASA's decision to stop participating in foreign missions because it would be betraying America's allies. The Artemis Accords have been ratified by 55 countries to date, and NASA's position as the global leader in space exploration is in jeopardy if we stop supporting missions with our longstanding partners at the European Space Agency (ESA), Canadian Space Agency (CSA), Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), and others. 6) Because it hurts state and local economies nationwide, the officials oppose the cancellation of NASA funding and contracts for non-performance-related reasons. By eliminating competitive grant selection procedures, arbitrary contract and grant termination undermines private entrepreneurship and lowers the amount of private sector jobs related to the space economy. 7) Because it diminishes NASA's ability to innovate for the good of humanity, the officials oppose the termination of programs designed to train and support the agency's personnel. The agency's primary value of inclusion is squarely at odds with cuts to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessible programming that have already been put into place. The country's future space economy workforce would suffer a severe damage if the Office of STEM Engagement were abolished.
Time of India
6 hours ago
- Time of India
So it was not diabetes but the common diabetes pill which was causing heart disease! Shocking research reveals the unbelievable!
For many living with type 2 diabetes, managing blood sugar is a daily reality. Often, medications come as a lifeline, and among them, sulfonylureas like glipizide are popular choices, especially in the US. They've been around for decades, are affordable, and have shown effective results in keeping glucose in check. But now, a new study has cast a shadow over this commonly used medicine. Researchers have discovered a possible link between glipizide and increased heart-related risks. Here's what the study found, what it truly means, and why this matters to families where diabetes is part of everyday conversations. Glipizide: Familiar, trusted, But now under scrutiny Glipizide belongs to a group of drugs called sulfonylureas. For decades, these medications have been trusted for lowering blood sugar in people with type 2 diabetes, often when metformin alone isn't enough. What made glipizide popular was its affordability and long-standing availability. But popularity doesn't always mean perfection. The latest study signals a possible red flag. Involving nearly 48,000 individuals, this research found that those taking glipizide had a higher risk of heart attacks, strokes, heart failure hospitalisations, and even cardiovascular-related deaths than those taking a newer class of drugs called DPP-4 inhibitors. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like You Won't Believe the Price of These Dubai Apartments Binghatti Developers FZE Get Offer Undo The numbers that raised eyebrows The research compared glipizide with other sulfonylureas like glimepiride and glyburide, along with DPP-4 inhibitors. Here's what stood out: Over a 5-year period, the risk of major heart events was 9.1% in those taking glipizide, while for those on DPP-4 inhibitors, it was 8.1%. The risk ratio for glipizide users was 1.13, indicating a 13% higher risk of cardiovascular events compared to DPP-4 inhibitor users. The risk was also slightly higher with glimepiride (8.6%) and glyburide (8.4%), but not statistically significant. What makes this important is that most participants were on their second diabetes medication after metformin, a common scenario in diabetes care. And they weren't at extremely high cardiac risk to begin with, just moderate, everyday individuals managing a chronic condition. Not just about the numbers, but about what they mean It's easy to be alarmed by statistics. But what do these numbers truly tell us? Firstly, the study doesn't claim that glipizide causes heart problems directly. What it suggests is a possible association, a pattern that raises concerns, especially in people already facing moderate cardiovascular risk. The heart, after all, is already under pressure in type 2 diabetes. When a drug meant to help with sugar control potentially adds to that risk, even slightly, it becomes a serious discussion for healthcare providers. Why affordability might come at a cost Sulfonylureas like glipizide are often the go-to option in low- and middle-income settings because they're inexpensive. DPP-4 inhibitors, on the other hand, are costlier but have a more favourable cardiovascular safety profile. This raises a deeper, more sensitive question: should treatment decisions depend on cost or safety? The answer isn't straightforward. But studies like this push for better informed decisions, where doctors weigh more than just sugar levels, they also look at heart health, overall risk, and long-term quality of life. What this means for families dealing with diabetes This isn't about pushing panic buttons. Glipizide is still an approved and effective drug. But the study offers important insights for personalised diabetes management. It's a reminder that medications work differently for different people, and what works well for one might not be ideal for another, especially when silent risks like cardiovascular strain are involved. It's also a cue to revisit older medications with a fresh lens, especially when newer, safer options are available. The story here isn't about fear, but about awareness and agency. (Inputs from agencies)
