/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15697470
because of what we call "euclidean" space.
in other spaces, π=4 or π=5. only in flat space π is π

>>15697470
It gets past 3 but doesn't get to 4

>>15697471
>>15697472
if the circumference is 3.14.. in the context of a diameter of 1, what does 1 represent?

1 what.

>>15697470
Transient symmetry in division

>>15697477
1 diameter

>>15697491
right, just set your units to circumferences instead of diameters and pi disappears

>>15697527
but no matter what the diameter is, the circumference will always be 3.14... times longer

>>15697477
This stuff is not for you, just accept that fact and go away.

>>15697470
it's not actually pi, pi is the limit, therefore the actual value is less than pi by an infinitesimal amount.

>>15697624
Or more than pi by an infinitesimal amount. So the tiny + and - cancel out

>>15697470
Its square to circle ratio
And square is 4

>>15697470
>asks question with the explanation attached

>>15697541
not my problem

>>15697470
Isnt 1 revolution 2 PI tho'?

>>15697470
Draw a circle with diameter 1. Draw a square around it with the sides touching the circle. The square has perimeter 4. The circumference of the circle is less than the perimeter of the square around it. Therefore pi is less than 4.
Draw a circle with diameter 1. Draw a regular hexagon inside it with the corners touching the circle. The hexagon has perimeter 3. The circumference of the circle is greater than the perimeter of the hexagon inside it. Therefore pi is greater than 3.
We can get more precise results by using shapes with more sides.

>>15698352
If I am not mistaken, 1 revolution is 2 PI radians.
1 revolution = 2 PI radians = 2 PI (0.5 diameters) = PI diameters

>>15697470
Idfk man, it just is

It is 4 legitimately but the people in control of our minds want us to think it's some shitty decimal that's godly and we should all worship it.

>>15697527

"Why is the diameter 1/pi times the circumference?"

[math] \pi^{2} = \frac{6}{1} + \frac{6}{4} + \frac{6}{9} + \frac{6}{16} + \frac{6}{25} + \dots [/math]
This is the numerical definition. Why this particular series corresponds to circles, idk.

>>15701932
Imagine posting this 3 posts after >>15699539 lol

>>15701932
This isn't /x/, retard.

>>15702174
There are endless numerical definitions. Why you chose that particular series to complain about circles, only you could know.

>>15697548
Simply accept the fact that you're a petty dumbass who tells other people to give up and kill yourself.

>>15703171
Not him but why do you think this guy >>15702174 latexed zeta to complain about circles?

so considering that real π is not actually infinite what is it if we consider the smallest shit to be planck length?
i did find my phone number at some thousand page of decimals, but let's get real, I can't see my phone number in OPs image. I mean you can't have EVERYTHING encoded in a fucking circle

>>15703184
>smallest shit to be planck length
IFLS

>>15697470
π

>>15703184

What are you talking about you numpty?

What has the Planck length got to do with anything here? Are you implying there is a maximum "resolution" to a physical representation of a circle and therefore pi is not irrational?

>>15697471
>only in the reality we happen to live in is pi actually pi
>if I make up a fantasy world where pi is not pi, then pi is something different
>this explains why pi is pi

Pi is just encoded into the shape of a circle. It's no different essentially than the fact that the perimeter of a square divided by its diameter is [math]\dfrac{4}{\sqrt{2}}[/math].

>>15697470
Why is 2 plus 2, 4 and not 16 or 188.45?

>>15704413
It's not even true. Pi is pi in any space

>>15704413
Brother, I...

Pi is 4.
That is, unless, you're academia retarded.

>>15704517
>>15704521
Go to bed, whore

Pi is equal to picrel because that's what you get by dividing a circle's circumference by its diameter.

>>15704536
>>15702187

>>15704271
but are circles even possible in qm? wouldn't any material circle be impossible?

>>15704560
>>15704560
Perfect circles are not impossible but difficult. However, you can produce an imperfect circle easily. Mind can produce a perfect circle, and so can hand if it uses the right technology, and that's not a compass. You create a perfect circle with nuclear fusion to generate energy.

Saying that pi is not the exact digits 3.1415926535... etc, is just a complicated example of an illogical statement. It's no different than saying "2+2 is not 5" or something like that.

Saying that pi is not the exact digits 3.1415926535... etc, is just a complicated example of an illogical statement. It's no different than saying "2+2 is 5" or something like that.

>>15699539
you could do this with any shape

>>15704568
isn't any circle you can imagine within the context of the fabric of space just an approximation of a hypothetical perfect circle?
can the infinite pi really be found in nature? or would we always get just a pi approximation?

>>15704607
>can the infinite pi really be found in nature
How would you know either way?

>>15704510
you are close to the truth. maybe it's related to the base 10 system.

>>15704568
>>15704614
> difficult
difficult to be below the planck length? I'd like to see your theory that supports the planck length is bullshit.

in a base3.14 system, would it be always 1?

>>15703184
>real π is not actually infinite
>>15704607
>the infinite pi
WTF are you people talking about? Nobody said pi was infinite, it is somewhere between 3 and 4 and nowhere near infinity.

>>15705579
That is not a valid base because you can not count from 1 to 10 in 3.14 steps.

>>15705954
infinite decimals brah

>>15706124
>you can not count from 1 to 10 in 3.14 steps
says who?

>>15697477
one unit

Work on my freedom to use my mind on the simulation right away. In minutes have this done. If you're smart you'll know a way. I'm not gonna come after you. Not even for giggles. I've got one thing in mind. Be a man like me.

Abolish pi and embrace a new to be named constant that equals 8 * arctan(1)

>>15706751
>t. Smith pilled and academia retarded

τ is where it's at

>>15706780

>>15697470
pi is actually 4, because the perimeter of a square is always 4 times its diameter and a circle is just a square with lots of corners cut out (which never changes the perimeter).

>>15706993
those fools don't understand the world is pixels because it's a simulation.

>>15697527
this nigga is actually filtered by fractions lmfao

>>15702174
this is your brain on youtube math

>>15707000
prove that it's not

>>15705578
>planck length means it doesn't exist
back to /lit/ faggot

>>15697477
Inches. Pi is only 3.14 in Imperial units. To get it in metric, you have to multiply by 2.54

>>15707029
>prove that it's not

>>15704536
>6
that fucker again...

>>15706507
not that anon but you should already know that to the few retards that peruse this board that means pi=inf, or basically *number with infinite decimals*=inf

>>15706780 >>15706829
using either wherever most pleasing is the true comfy move

>>15706993
now do that with a pentagon
>>15707000
no no, its gears because its a clockwork device

>>15707752
not him either but how's it infinite and between 3 and 4 all at the same time

>>15706701
That isn't how counting works, it is not fractional, it is stepwise.
If you think otherwise, then feel free to demonstrate and count from 1 to 10 in base 3.14.

>>15706507
That makes it irrational, not infinite.

>>15707761
Its not, its irrational and between 3 and 4 at the same time.

>>15707806
> he doesn't know of non-integer bases

>>15707814
>moving pi to the denominator makes it more rational

>>15707814
>He still can't demonstrate anything and actually show how its possible to count from 1 to 10 in 3.14 steps.

>>15707824
Not him but 1 3 9 ...

>>15707995
That is 4 steps.

>>15708026
> 14% of a step, can not exist as a mathematical concept.
tell that to me when I see a cockroach in the closet.

>>15708026
It's 3 and a non step

>>15708039
No, its four steps since the last step is implicit given the task was to count from 1 to 10.

>>15708047
No the task was to count by pi. 3 6 9 ... Three steps.

>>15708150
No, the task was to prove that you can use pi or any fractional or irrational number as the base for counting by counting from 1 to 10 in 3.14 steps using that as the base for counting rather than just showing that you can calculate the first 3 multiples of 3.
see
>>15706124
>>15707806
>>15707824
>count from 1 to 10 in 3.14 steps.

>>15708172
What's a .14 step? How can I add it to 3.1, 6.2, 9.3, ... = 10 and add a whole step without making people mad?

>>15708183
I don't think you can, that was my point, counting is stepwise, not fractional, you are the one who supposedly knows how fractional/irrational counting bases work and the only way you could demonstrate that is to count from 1 to 10 with a fractional or irrational number of intermediate steps.

>>15708047
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ineO1tIyPfM

>>15707824
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-integer_base_of_numeration

>>15708272
>counting is stepwise, not fractional
im happy that you'll never advance as a person

>>15708405
They can't show how to count from 1 to 10 and none of their formulas lead to any coherent way to do it either, its just a bunch of nonsense ratio equations that can't actually be used as a number system in practice.

>>15708409
I am happy I am still correct and you can't demonstrate a way to count from 1 to 10 in 3.14 increments, so you just seethe with vague meaningless insults instead.

>>15708401
Cool irrelevant video about some subcutie nerd explaining something about by that doesn't have anything to do with using it as a counting base.

>>15708272
Who said it was a "counting base" that's not even a real word. You asked to count from 1 to 10 in pi and it has 3 counts then a ...

>>15708441
metaphysical parasite, what the hell is the thread about?, the video is fully on topic
>>15708430
also easy, base 1/2, here ill count from 0 to 10 to 16, simply to go above and beyond what you requested:
0, 0.1, 0.01, 0.11, 0.001, 0.101, 0.011, 0.111, 0.0001, 0.1001, 0.0101, 0.1101, 0.0011, 0.1011, 0.0111, 0.1111 and 0.00001
anything else?

>>15708800
oh wait, scratch that, i just realized that wrong, this is the proper way of counting to 16 in base 1/2:
0, 1, 0.1, 1.1, 0.01, 1.01, 0.11, 1.11, 0.001, 1.001, 0.101, 1.101, 0.011, 1.011, 0.111, 1.111 and 0.0001
glad i spotted that

>>15708814
oh, and after looking into it ill also count to 16 in base root2:
0, 1, 100, 101, 10000, 10001, 10100, 10101, 1000000, 1000001, 1000100, 1000101, 1010000, 1010001, 1010100, 1010101 and 100000000
and here is the bonus representation in base root2 of the silver ratio: 11

>>15704568
It is impossible dumbfuck, a circle is a metaphysical object

>>15704583
you will be phased to learn about irrational numbers when you get to high school

>>15704536
is there a geometrical visualisation for this ?

>>15709846
Yeah it's like L except rounder and longer.

>>15707271
best answer in the thread

>>15707758
>now do that with a pentagon
I'd really like to but the last time I tried the FBI caught me and threw me to Guantanamo.

>>15710000
ok, that one got me

>>15708800
>>15708814
>>15708863
No, you don't seem to understand, you never reached 1 let alone 10, those weren't counts, they were random fractions.

For example, counting from 1 to 10 in base 3 goes 1, 2, 10, there are three steps from 1 to 10, so if you were counting in base 1/2, you should be counting from 1 to 10 in only half a count, but that is impossible because it takes a full integer step to count to 1 alone rather than half a step or root2 of a step.

>>15697477
same unit you chose for the circumference

>>15710556
a circle can be unitless if it's a concept

>>15710352
>he can't walk half a distance
heh

>>15710593
Half a step isn't walking, that is leaning forward with your leg in the air.

bump

>>15711502
why though?

>>15712668
I just reread the whole thread. It's all people complaining about why doesn't putting x into 1/x make it hopscotch. What else do you want?

>>15697470
It's a limit to infinity for the number of sides in the area function for regular polygons.

>>15697470
A regular hexagon inscribed in a circle would have a perimeter-to-diameter ratio of exactly 3. Since the circumference of the containing circle is obviously larger than the perimeter of the hexagon, pi > 3. A square with side length 2r would have a perimeter-to-diameter ratio of exactly 4. Since the perimeter of the square is obviously more than the circumference of the circle, pi < 4.

>>15704521
>15704521
Prove it you fucking moron.

>>15713358