@AsDaGo Let's get this straight, so you're saying that 1+1 is NOT 2 and you still can't agree on the fact that my Rapid rating is better than yours? My Rapid rating is better than yours, and that's the truth! >:(
@AsDaGo I seriously do not know. I am totally confused!
@Neco_Arc_Lurking said in #16:
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> Imagine believing this.
>
> The calculations here are completely wrong. By the way, you say PERIMETER when talking about the outer edge of a polygon. You say CIRCUMFERENCE when talking about the outer edge of a circle. Did you ever finish elementary school math? lmao
>
> And besides, the PERIMETER of the square is CLEARLY not equal to the circumference of the circle.
>
> The square's PERIMETER is: 2r * 2r.
> The circle's circumference is: 2πr.
>
> Whatever nonsense you've shown in the third image is clearly you just erasing the square's AREA to gradually fit the circle's area.
>
> You're wrong and a joke. Delete this thread PLEASE.
that’s very rude of you
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> Imagine believing this.
>
> The calculations here are completely wrong. By the way, you say PERIMETER when talking about the outer edge of a polygon. You say CIRCUMFERENCE when talking about the outer edge of a circle. Did you ever finish elementary school math? lmao
>
> And besides, the PERIMETER of the square is CLEARLY not equal to the circumference of the circle.
>
> The square's PERIMETER is: 2r * 2r.
> The circle's circumference is: 2πr.
>
> Whatever nonsense you've shown in the third image is clearly you just erasing the square's AREA to gradually fit the circle's area.
>
> You're wrong and a joke. Delete this thread PLEASE.
that’s very rude of you
pi = yum
I actually had to think about this a bit. Of course Thalasso and others have stated it already. First thing you learn with limits is that you actually have to observe that the value of the function changes with the argument, and appears bounded. But in this case, the limit is always 8r, suggesting the end result is just a very finely corrugated polygon which only appears to be a circle, nothing more.
The use of infinities in mathematics always bothers me, because of weird outcomes like Banach Tarski. I'm glad this one was at least understandable to the layman.
The use of infinities in mathematics always bothers me, because of weird outcomes like Banach Tarski. I'm glad this one was at least understandable to the layman.
@Phil224 said in #1:
> first let’s draw a circle with a radius of r, The circumference of the circle is 2πr
> images.chesscomfiles.com/uploads/v1/images_users/tiny_mce/Phil224/php1MOqMD.jpg
> now let’s draw a square enveloping the circle, the length of the square is 2r, so the circumference of the square is 2r·4=8r
> images.chesscomfiles.com/uploads/v1/images_users/tiny_mce/Phil224/phpCLDSc9.jpg
> now let’s cut four small squares into the big square, The circumference of the square has not changed. now let’s cut another, no matter how we cut the square its circumference is always 8r, until it finally coincides with the circle.
> images.chesscomfiles.com/uploads/v1/images_users/tiny_mce/Phil224/phpZNZuRk.jpg
> now The circumference of the square is still 8r, but the circumference of the circle is 2πr. so that means
> 2πr=8r
> πr=4r
> π=4
> so anyone saying π is 3.1415926... is wrong.
It's wrong. You're wrong.
I'm not gonna give a lot of equations, incase it doesn't attract people to read this message, but let's just say this: The circle's sides are infinite, thus you're wrong.
> first let’s draw a circle with a radius of r, The circumference of the circle is 2πr
> images.chesscomfiles.com/uploads/v1/images_users/tiny_mce/Phil224/php1MOqMD.jpg
> now let’s draw a square enveloping the circle, the length of the square is 2r, so the circumference of the square is 2r·4=8r
> images.chesscomfiles.com/uploads/v1/images_users/tiny_mce/Phil224/phpCLDSc9.jpg
> now let’s cut four small squares into the big square, The circumference of the square has not changed. now let’s cut another, no matter how we cut the square its circumference is always 8r, until it finally coincides with the circle.
> images.chesscomfiles.com/uploads/v1/images_users/tiny_mce/Phil224/phpZNZuRk.jpg
> now The circumference of the square is still 8r, but the circumference of the circle is 2πr. so that means
> 2πr=8r
> πr=4r
> π=4
> so anyone saying π is 3.1415926... is wrong.
It's wrong. You're wrong.
I'm not gonna give a lot of equations, incase it doesn't attract people to read this message, but let's just say this: The circle's sides are infinite, thus you're wrong.
damn I ain’t reading allat
@Thalassokrator said in #26:
> Disclaimer: I'm not a mathematician and therefore not the most qualified person to address this apparent conundrum. I'm an amateur. If there are any mistakes, feel (blah blah blah)
maybe I can put this whole conversation into my math exam to confuse my teacher
@Thalassokrator said in #26:
> Disclaimer: I'm not a mathematician and therefore not the most qualified person to address this apparent conundrum. I'm an amateur. If there are any mistakes, feel (blah blah blah)
maybe I can put this whole conversation into my math exam to confuse my teacher
@hx0 said in #39:
> damn I ain’t reading allat
That's fine by me! Luckily, you're not obligated to do so! The world is your oyster, spend your time doing what you love!
> "(blah blah blah)"
You're right, my posts are habitually verbose. I don't blame you if that's not your cup of tea.
Then again, this blah blah blah (well, certainly not mine specifically, but maths in general) lies at the heart of the device you just used to send this message. Your device and the endless streams of information accessible to you today (that were inaccessible for ≈80 of the last 100 years) exist only because some people loved maths so much that they invented:
Algorithms, codes and ciphers, Napier's logarithm tables, calculating machines, Babbage's and Lovelace's Analytical Engine, quaternions, Shannon entropy, information theory, discrete mathematics, cipher machines, electro-mechanical computers, Turing machines, Von Neumann architecture, electronics, logic gates, programming languages, error-correcting codes (Hamming codes), integrated circuits, Fast Fourier Transforms (FFTs), Convolutions, personal computers, GPUs, transistor architecture, backpropagation, public-key encryption (RSA), the internet, AES, smartphones, artificial intelligence (neural networks, deep learning, ...), quantum computers, quantum encryption.
I have a great deal of respect for these people and I'm thankful for the work they have done. For had they not done it, I would not have received your message! :-)
> damn I ain’t reading allat
That's fine by me! Luckily, you're not obligated to do so! The world is your oyster, spend your time doing what you love!
> "(blah blah blah)"
You're right, my posts are habitually verbose. I don't blame you if that's not your cup of tea.
Then again, this blah blah blah (well, certainly not mine specifically, but maths in general) lies at the heart of the device you just used to send this message. Your device and the endless streams of information accessible to you today (that were inaccessible for ≈80 of the last 100 years) exist only because some people loved maths so much that they invented:
Algorithms, codes and ciphers, Napier's logarithm tables, calculating machines, Babbage's and Lovelace's Analytical Engine, quaternions, Shannon entropy, information theory, discrete mathematics, cipher machines, electro-mechanical computers, Turing machines, Von Neumann architecture, electronics, logic gates, programming languages, error-correcting codes (Hamming codes), integrated circuits, Fast Fourier Transforms (FFTs), Convolutions, personal computers, GPUs, transistor architecture, backpropagation, public-key encryption (RSA), the internet, AES, smartphones, artificial intelligence (neural networks, deep learning, ...), quantum computers, quantum encryption.
I have a great deal of respect for these people and I'm thankful for the work they have done. For had they not done it, I would not have received your message! :-)
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.