No, it isn't infinite nor does it have any property unique to it. It is irrational and transcendental, which is the case forPi = 3.14 15 92....mathematical infinity..o8o

*most*numbers, the set of algebraic numbers has measure zero within the Reals.

Except that you don't cube pi when you consider 3 dimensional volume forms, you cube the length scale. For example, the 'area' for a 1-sphere is $$2\pi r$$ and a 2-sphere is $$4 \pi r^{2}$$ while for a 2-ball it is $$\pi r^{2}$$ and a 3-ball it is $$\frac{4}{3}\pi r^{3}$$. The general forms are here.Pi^3 = 31.00 62 7.....7 integers

^3 = cubing or tetrahedroning 3rd powering volumetric values.

So? Give me a number less than 100 and I'm sure there is some part of the human body which has that many pieces to it, your factoid is utterly vapid.Humans have 31 bilateral( ergo 62 ) spinal nerves.

So? Once again, give me any number below 100 and I can find a geometric construct with that many pieces to it. Why the icosahedron? Why not the cube? Of course, the cube doesn't have 31 of something obvious so you went and found something which DID have 31 of something and declare it some important fact.The icosa(20)hedron( regular/symmetrical primary structure ) has 31 primary great/equaltorial, bisecting circle-like planes( GrCP's ).

This is numerology, plain and simple.

You're misusing terminology. You don't mean 'infinite', you mean 'non-terminating decimal expansion'. All irrational numbers have such a property, so what.The only gibberish is your thinking there is set of "last digits of pi". Infinite numbers do not have a set of "last digits".

You're the troll. You have so little knowledge of mathematics you think what you say is impressive or even worth the electrons it takes to transmit across the internet.You need to change your attitude first and foremost as you appear troll -like to me.

No, as I just illustrated that third power is NOT the third power of pi but rather the length scale in question. And then only in particularly pleasant geometric constructs.3rd powering gives volumetric values. If you don't like the facts of my statements then move on.

Wow, talk about projecting. I gave you warnings for posts like this, which are so blatentlyYour seemingly pissy attitude is not needed around here.

*bullshit*but which you are so enamoured with that you had to whine to me multiple times via PM.

Right back at you. Nothing in your posts or threads are of any scientific merit. If people wanted random facts about integers they can use Wikipedia. Seriously, I cannot believe you think what you say is worthwhile. Have youSo I stated a fact as best as I could recall. If you can't handle the facts without having attitude then please move along.

*ever*read a textbook or scientific article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton

...."A proton has a mass of approximately 938 MeV/c2, of which the rest mass of its three valence quarks contributes only about 11 MeV/c2; much of the remainder can be attributed to the gluons' QCBE.".....

So it appears the actual mass of quarks in proton is 11 as the 3 quarks( fermionic matter ). Wow that is huge differrence from 938. which is mostly bosonic force mass. Go figure.

So, since like so many of these numerical associations, I stumble across, I had to see where 11 fits into this 7 or 73 or 87 set of primary GrCP's.

77 / 11 = 7 and 77 GrCP's is 4 more than 73 and 10 less than 87, which 87 has the 7 + 7 redundantly congruent GrCP's.

Again, these are just quick and easy to stumble across associations and not part of rigorous do the same thing for every number type of correlation.

I.e. first time was 7 * 73 = 511 and then 511 / 1000 = .511

Pure numerology. The quantities you use all have units so if we worked in kilograms and not $$MeV/c^{2}$$ they would all be different. The mass of the proton in kilograms is $$1.67 \times 10^{-27}$$. That's much much less than 1, so it is not a whole multiple of 11. Of how about if we worked in 'natural units', ie Planck units, the mass of the proton is about $$7.5 \times 10^{-20}$$ Planck masses. Still not divisible by 11. In fact in kilograms NONE of the elementary particle properties are even close to 1, never mind integers between 10 and 1000.

That's the classic mistake made by hacks doing numerology, they are so ignorant of how science works that they do not realise that quantities which has units do not have 'fundamental' values, they depend on the choice of units. The only meaningful quantities in fundamental physics are dimensionless, such as the fine structure constant $$\alpha \approx \frac{1}{137}$$, which is that value in any units system because the scalings cancel one another out. Hence if you're stupid enough to try numerology at least do it on dimensionless quantities. Of course then there's a second mistake hacks make all the time which is they fail to realise coupling constants undergo energy scale renormalisation flows so $$\alpha \approx \frac{1}{128}$$ at the electroweak scale. Anyway, I'm sure all of this rationality and

*reality*is making your head hurt so suffice to say you've shown you are 'pity', despite calling others that, that you're a 'troll', despite calling others that and that you're

**grossly**ignorant of even the basic qualitative concepts in science.

I completely stand by my decision to move this thread to the fringe section. It and everything else you post is without scientific merit and has no place within the main maths/physics forum. If you post a thread in there which in any way resembles this kind of BS you'll be banned for a period of time, as you have been warned. And seeing as you're obviously incapable of evaluating the scientific merit of your own delusional nonsense I'll make it even clearer; until such time as you have demonstrated in the fringe section you're coherent and not a numerology peddling hack said restriction amounts to you not being allowed to post

*any*thread in the main forum.