Pi and Platonism

[Anonymous No.14524807]

Could a "perfect circle" even be possible in the World of Forms? All circles depend on π, an irrational, transcendental number - it has potentially infinite digits and to suggest that infinity could be actual anywhere just sounds insane. "Perfect circle" suggests "actually infinite pi", because a perfect circle is formed on the basis of perfect information, which includes "actually infinite pi". "Actually infinite pi" doesn't appear possible even in the World of Forms. Therefore "Perfect" circle also doesn't appear possible in the World of Forms.

[Anonymous No.14524809]

>>14524807
What a load of waffle. Might as well argue whether or not angels brush their teeth.

[Anonymous No.14524815]

>>14524807
>Could a "perfect circle" even be possible in the World of Forms?
What are the rules?

>it has potentially infinite digits and to suggest that infinity could be actual anywhere just sounds insane.
>1/3 has infinite digits. Therefore it's impossible to split something up into 3 parts.
You're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.14524817]

>>14524815
NTA but you're legit 80 IQ.

[Anonymous No.14525162]

>>14524807

[Anonymous No.14525178]

>>14524807
The world of forms is not an actual place, some museum of idealized shapes browsed by philosophers who meditate, die, or take psychedelics, as though behind the scene of a theater the rest of the fictional world could be found.

[Anonymous No.14525212]

>>14524807
That's an interesting question. It's said that pi to the 10th digit sufficiently describes everything in the observable universe. So let's take pi to the googlplex digit. What are you even doing with that? Why do you need more? Pi having infinite digits sounds nonsensical then.

[Anonymous No.14525237]

>>14524807
>Number
No.

>it has potentially infinite digits and to suggest that infinity could be actual anywhere just sounds insane.
It also is what classifies it as "not a number"

>"Perfect circle" suggests "actually infinite pi", because a perfect circle is formed on the basis of perfect information, which includes "actually infinite pi"
It implies that geometry cannot be accurately described by math.

>"Actually infinite pi" doesn't appear possible even in the World of Forms. Therefore "Perfect" circle also doesn't appear possible in the World of Forms.
No. All it means is that it cannot be understood using math alone.


>>14524815
>You're an idiot.
Please quantify "1/3" as a value instead of a ratio. You won't though because you'll be writing "3's till kingdom come.

[bodhi No.14525365]

>>14524807
>Could a "perfect circle" even be possible in the World of Forms?
Nothing is perfect in the worlds that is why the entire concept of platonic forms exist and the gnostic notion of the demiurge. Perfect things only exist in higher dimensions. not this one

[bodhi No.14525368]

>>14524809
drooler take, this is to far beyond you pleb, go back to arguing about some pop sci retard shit you know nothing about in another thread. This is an adult thread

[Anonymous No.14525385]

>>14524817
Why?

[Anonymous No.14525390]

>>14525237
>Please quantify "1/3" as a value instead of a ratio.
A ratio is a value. You're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.14525447]

>>14525237
>Please quantify "1/3" as a value instead of a ratio.
0.n, where n is any number you want it to be such that when multiplied by 3 it adds up to 1
>inb4 it doesn't work
Yes it does, all numbers are made up, you can just make up more numbers, the only limiting factor is your retarded brain incapable of creating better and more refined models.

[Anonymous No.14525760]

>>14524807
>"Actually infinite pi" doesn't appear possible even in the World of Forms. Therefore "Perfect" circle also doesn't appear possible in the World of Forms.
Huh? Aren't forms literally perfect by definition?

[Anonymous No.14525783]

Just define a circle as the set of all rational points equidistant to some center lmaooooo

[Anonymous No.14525804]

>>14525390
>A ratio is a value.
It contains values and is a comparison of them, retard. That's why you can't put "0" in it and have it come out with a value. So please tell me what value "1/3" represents (if you can)?
>inb4, hurr no the comparison of numbers is a number!

>>14525447
>0.n, where n is any number you want it to be such that when multiplied by 3 it adds up to 1
Well that's not a quantity. That's just a sentence full of cope as to why you can't actually give me a value.

>Yes it does, all numbers are made up
And what I'm trying to tell you is that you can't even "make up" the number without making math pointless as you're suggesting it really is.
>the only limiting factor is your retarded brain incapable of creating better and more refined models.
It's true. Math really can't explain how the universe functions and is simply a language we reified.

[Anonymous No.14525809]

Stop shitting up math with infantile philosophy bullshit, retards.

[Anonymous No.14525843]

>>14525760
>Huh? Aren't forms literally perfect by definition?
They should be. However we say that pi is an irrational yet transcendental number. That "irrationality" even subsists in the World of Forms goes against the Platonic spirit. Pi just appears to be the madman that just won't stop ranting and this is true in all possible worlds.

To say "actually infinite pi is in the world of Forms" suggests there is such a thing as a perfectly rambling madman in a realm where there should be perfection. That makes the meaning of perfection meaningless.

[Anonymous No.14526107]

>>14525804
>It contains values and is a comparison of them, retard.
It's also a value. 1/3 and 0.333... are the same value. If you're going to sperg out about something it should at least be accurate, instead of semantic differences you invented.

>That's why you can't put "0" in it and have it come out with a value.
Where do you see a 0 in 1/3?

[Anonymous No.14526146]

>>14525843
/thread

[Anonymous No.14526204]

>>14525804
>why you can't actually give me a value
Because I was forced to learn a shitty mathematical system that can't accurately describe something that occurs in reality

[Anonymous No.14526221]

>>14526107
>1/3 and 0.333... are the same value
Okay
Let 1/3 be 0.333...
1 - 1/3 = 2/3
1 - 0.333... = 0.777...
0.777... / 2 =/= 0.333..
And thus 1/3 =/= 0.333..

[Anonymous No.14526239]

>>14524815
>>1/3 has infinite digits. Therefore it's impossible to split something up into 3 parts.
>You're an idiot.

How could you divide something into three equal parts without some voodoo rules about infinite series?

You divide it into 0.33, 0.33, 0.33 and you have 0.99, so it is not 100% divided. You could divide into 0.33, 0.33, 0.34, but then it is not equal. And then pattern repeats all the way, no matter how many 3s you put in front.

[Anonymous No.14526425]

>>14524807
In the world of forms pi wouldn't be 3.14 etc... but the ratio between the diameter and the perfect circle. Decimal notation isn't a platonic representation of a number such as pi.

[Anonymous No.14526454]

>14526425
>Decimal notation isn't a platonic representation of a number such as pi.
So it reduces to a definition game between those who love geometry against those who love arithmetic?

[Anonymous No.14526466]

>>14526107
>It's also a value
No, it's not. That's why there's this distinct word for it called "ratio". It potentially represents a value.

>1/3 and 0.333... are the same value
Neither are a quantity no.

>If you're going to sperg out about something it should at least be accurate,
You're the one who didn't finish those threes and lazily used the "..." symbol as placeholder for quantity when it's undefined.

>Where do you see a 0 in 1/3?
as in you can't put "0" in a ratio you dingus, it's meaningless/undefined. I was making a point of how a ratio COMPARES value, but is not an actual value itself.

>>14526204
>Because I was forced to learn a shitty mathematical system that can't accurately describe something that occurs in reality

That's not why you can't give me the value, you can't give me it because it's literally impossible and it's of no fault of your own. No mathematical system will provide certain values without contradicting itself, that's not to say that it's completely pointless. Reproducibility/redundancy is essential where it's needed.

[Anonymous No.14526480]

>>14526466
>That's not why you can't give me the value
I already gave you one, it can be anything you want it to be, as all mathematical systems are made up, given that our system doesn't work is very clear indication that something is wrong and we should adopt a better model

[Anonymous No.14526960]

>>14525843
Does pi being infinite mean that it isn't perfect? I feel like there's a leap in logic here.

[Anonymous No.14527010]

>>14525804
>So please tell me what value "1/3" represents
a third

[Anonymous No.14527011]

>>14526239
>How could you divide something into three equal parts without some voodoo rules about infinite series?
I have three apples, take 1/3 of 3 and you have easily divided the three apples into 3 equal parts.

[Anonymous No.14527016]

>>14524807
>A real imperfect reality can't handle pi because pi is too perfect.
>An imaginary perfect reality can't handle pi because it is not perfect enough.

[Anonymous No.14527385]

>>14524807
a perfect circle is already possible. A two-dimensional figure at a point, limited by a line, where any straight lines drawn from the point to the limit are equal.
A perfect circle is possible in the world of forms, but not in the physical world because mathematical objects are ones of logic and axioms, many of which aren't true.

[Anonymous No.14527390]

>>14525237
>Please quantify "1/3" as a value instead of a ratio.
Oh, that's easy!
0.1
I wrote it in base 3, because it doesn't really matter what base you write in, since that's just a way of notating actual quantities we made up.

[Anonymous No.14527393]

>>14524807
Always hide and ignore finitist threads.

[Anonymous No.14527678]

>magical place where ideas work without material constraints
>but how would you fit infinity in there lol
sage