/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14828343]

how are the circumfrence and the surface area the same?

[Anonymous No.14828362]

>>14828343
Because 4*0.5^2=2*0.5. You just picked the lucky radius.

[Anonymous No.14828364]

>>14828343
i bet ur confused cuz u thought its liek a unit sphere n shit uknowimean? but actualy its not cuz it says diametre is 1 n not radius

[Anonymous No.14828368]

It's wrong. Circumference is [math] 2\pi r[/math] while surface area is [math]4\pi r^2[/math]. They are not the same for [math]r=1[/math]

[Anonymous No.14828370]

>>14828368
>diameter means radius
Cringe.

[Anonymous No.14828806]

if the diameter is 1, you find circumference by multiplying pi by diameter, and diameter is 1, anything times 1 is itself

Surface area is 4πr^2, 4π is like 12.5 something so your image is wrong

[Anonymous No.14830202]

>>14828806
>it's wrong
It's Wolfram|Alpha lmao

[Anonymous No.14830210]

>>14828806
And what is r^2 in this instance to complete your calculation?

[Anonymous No.14830229]

>>14830210
none of this explains why the circumference is measurable as pi, and the surface area is also measurable as pi. it suggests either or both of the circumference measurement or surface area calculation are wrong. It is obvious that a sphere has more, otherwise this math leads to the idea that a circle radius 0.5 and a sphere radius 0.5 are not only the same mathematical object, but the same object in reality itself. If a circle and a sphere are the same object, then the Earth is a flat disc.

[Anonymous No.14830246]

>>14830229
Can I fit as much stuff in a 1d room 10 feet in length as a 10 square foot room?

[Anonymous No.14830248]

>>14830229
>none of this explains why the circumference is measurable as pi, and the surface area is also measurable as pi. it suggests either or both of the circumference measurement or surface area calculation are wrong. It is obvious that a sphere has more
the absolute state

[Anonymous No.14830340]

>>14830246
if a line has no width then it wouldn't be observable. Drawing a line on a piece of paper is not really 1D. The act of drawing a line on paper is 4D. The width and minuscule depth is determined by the amount of material being deposited onto the paper, while the length of the line is determined by more deposited material + the amount of time the line drawing tool was in contact with the paper combined with an impetus of force or speed measured through time. Such a 4D object would contain "stuff" if only by measuring the width of the line's deposited material, along with it's length, depth, and amount of time spent drawing the line given a constant force.
But what the fuck is constant?

an imaginary mathematical object "1D" straight line length unit 1 is not a closed object and therefore can not contain anything but the amount of time spent dedicating it to memory from imagination. 10*0 = 0; 10*10=100.

Common math is incomplete without more knowledge. Math is difficult for children to learn because it is taught through esoteric information-barren imaginary rulesets divided from obvious observable aspects of existing. What value is an imaginary cube constructed of widthless lines compared to a cube of wood that can be held in one's hands? It only teaches children to imagine invisible things rather than manifesting real objects through their imagination.

TL;DR
Thinking, imagining, and memory access are a sense, just like taste, touch, sight, smell, and hearing. All of these senses are used to react to the world outside one's body. All of these senses are observable upon others by those who have them. It is determinable whether your eyes work, your ears work, your nose works, your skin works, or your tongue works. It is also determinable whether your mind works. It is also determinable how your mind works. It is also determinable what your thoughts are, what your imaginations are, and what your memories are, and what they aren't.
You are under influence.

[Anonymous No.14830344]

>>14830340
That doesn't really clarify why a circumference being the same number as an area is unbelievable.

[Anonymous No.14830356]

>>14828343
>all these "explanations" who can't even read the fucking pic
it's the way the units are defined, simple as. 1 unit length (in this case for circumference) is used to define 1 unit area and then every other relative length or areas are relative to that, and the relationship between length/area is maintained because of the geometric properties of a sphere.

[Anonymous No.14830358]

>>14828343
[math]
\begin{align*}
4 \pi r^2 &= 2 \pi r \\
2r &= 1 \\
r &= \dfrac{1}{2} \\


\end{align*}
[/math]

[Anonymous No.14830366]

>>14830340
Neuseating, low IQ post. Wordcels are trash.

[Anonymous No.14830380]

>>14830229
>It is obvious that a sphere has more
Has more what, retard? More surface area than a 1D curve with a length of pi? A 1D curve has no area at all, so your comparison is nonsensical. At most you could argue that it has an area of 0, in which case, yes, pi is greater than 0.

[Anonymous No.14830391]

>sphere
>circumference
Kill yourselves.

[Anonymous No.14830628]

>>14830229
>none of this explains why the circumference is measurable as pi, and the surface area is also measurable as pi. it suggests either or both of the circumference measurement or surface area calculation are wrong. It is obvious that a sphere has more, otherwise this math leads to the idea that a circle radius 0.5 and a sphere radius 0.5 are not only the same mathematical object, but the same object in reality itself. If a circle and a sphere are the same object, then the Earth is a flat disc.
Pic is literally you, congratulations.

[Anonymous No.14830634]

>>14830229
>it suggests either or both of the circumference measurement or surface area calculation are wrong
Personally I think it suggests real numbers don't exist

[Anonymous No.14830640]

>>14830340
Montessori method teaches mathematics through physical objects with measured ratios and relationships. Cubes of sizes related to those larger and smaller such that you can fit 10 into 1, and so on.

[Anonymous No.14830655]

>>14830229
Bravo, Vince.

[Anonymous No.14830837]

Here's something mind blowing. This one has the same diameter and volume.

[Anonymous No.14830840]

>>14828368
Let's all point at him and laugh

[Anonymous No.14830846]

>>14830229
Based flattie

[Anonymous No.14830852]

The dependence of volume and surface area on pi increases every two dimensions. I wish I had some intuition as to why this is so.

image from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-sphere

[Anonymous No.14830856]

>>14828368
We found the nigger.

[Anonymous No.14830861]

>>14830229
What too much /sci/ exposure does to a mf.

[Anonymous No.14830873]

>>14830852
The volume of the N-sphere approaches 0 when N tend to infinity.
With higher dimensions, they are fewer points in the N-unit cube that verify :
x_i^2 = 1
This is verifiable using statistical approach.

[Anonymous No.14831051]

>>14830344
the circumference is the measurement around the sphere, a 2D slice of just the middle of the sphere to create a circle, as if rolling the sphere along a flat surface for 1 rotation on a single axis.
Imagine a sphere diameter 1 inch coated in a fine layer of ink, rolling across paper at a constant rate and force, permanently transferring ink from the sphere to the paper at the point of contact. At 1 rotation, the deposited ink line on the paper would have a length of pi inches, and that amount of ink would no longer be on the sphere. If the sphere continued to roll, it would be rolling with the inkless previously measured contact points, no longer producing a line. If after 1 roll or rotation, the sphere was instead rotated on another axis but continuing to roll in the same original direction, there would be new uncontacted ink points to deposit onto the paper, extending the length of the line beyond pi inches. With enough axis rotations after rolls, all the ink would be deposited onto the paper with none on the sphere, and this would be the measurement of the sphere's edge surface, just as pi inches was the measurement of the circle's edge surface. The sphere obviously must have far more points or edges than a circle, and yet for the circumference and surface area to be the same, assumes the sphere's far more numerous points or edges have much less value than the circle's points or edges. That the sphere's total 3D curvature is less information than the circle's 2D curvature, paradoxically even if the circle is referenced from the sphere.

the method breaks with r=0.5, so it couldn't be [math]4\pi r^2[/math].

The true surface area of a sphere is simply (circumference^2) / 2
for diameter 1 or radius = 0.5, c=pi
[math]\frac{C^2}{2} = \frac{\pi^2}{2} = 4.9348022...[/math], and then the surface area is obviously not just (incorrectly) the circumference.

why is this world retarded

[frenanon No.14832308]

>>14830852
Check out:
>>14807351
>>14808093
>>14822778

[DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk No.14832422]

>>14828343
>the same
don't forget the UNITS, anon

[Anonymous No.14832691]

>>14832422
[math]1 \space unit^3[/math]

[Anonymous No.14834084]

i think Archimedes thought a tetrahedron was a cube.

I also think he couldn't properly visualize 3D geometric objects intersecting. this nigger kept on drawing octagons inside of circles and outside of circles and then he was like "[math]4 \pi r^2[/math]" and everyone took it at face value for some reason. probably same shit as the speed of light "just make something up and assume nobody will ever be able to prove otherwise".

[Anonymous No.14834094]

>>14828368
It says right there the diameter is 1 though, which means the radius is 1/2, which is why everyone is laughing at you...

[Anonymous No.14834097]

>>14830229
>It is obvious that a sphere has more
More what?
A surface area is measured in some unit like square meters, while length is measured in meters. 3.14 meters are not the same thing as 3.14 square meters, you uber-brainlet.

[Anonymous No.14834113]

>>14834097
it's from a fucking cube unit 1. It's literally 1x1x1=1.
the sphere radius 0.5 exists within the boundary of [math]1^3[/math]. the sphere has more edges/points than the circle. the sphere has more curvature than the circle. the circle is what is measured around to be 3.14159---.

is that what you care about though? no.
you're over there being a goddamned retarded nigger negligently assuming anyone else is as fucking turbostupid as you are.
>THE SPHERE HAS MORE
>MORE WHAT?
>MORE MONEY? MORE FRIENDS? MORE APPLES? MORE INFINITIES? MORE TIME?
more IQ points than you

[Anonymous No.14834145]

>>14828368
diameter != radius

[Anonymous No.14834154]

>>14828343
circumference = 2 * pi * r
surface area = 4 * pi * r^2
solve for r
r = 0, r = 1/2
diameter = 1 => r = 1/2
what a mystery

[Anonymous No.14834159]

>>14830229
>none of this explains why the circumference is measurable as pi
d = 1 ->
r = 0.5
c = 2 * pi * r = 2 * pi * 0.5 = pi
explained
next

[Anonymous No.14834171]

>heptagon with the same side and area

[Anonymous No.14834177]

>>14834154
>>14834159
archimedes' 4*pi*r^2 math isn't correct. he didn't even know how to imagine in 3D.

[Anonymous No.14834223]

>>14834154
>>14834159
[math]\frac{C^2}{2}[/math]

[Anonymous No.14834225]

For any regular polygon with [math]n[/math] sides, if its perimeter and surfac area are the same number, the side of that polygon is [math]4\tan\left(\dfrac{\pi}{n}\right)[/math]. Just a random fact.

[Anonymous No.14834677]

>>14834177
yes, the surface area of a sphere is 4 * pi * r^2, that is correct regardless of whether you ascribe its discovery to Archimedes or Santa Claus
>>14834223
no idea what these schizo ramblings are trying to say
formulate your thoughts clearer

[Anonymous No.14834764]

>>14834677
eat glass retard
literally learn to do math

[Anonymous No.14834962]

>>14834223
for size reference, a cube 4% larger than the cube on the right would only be a couple pixels larger as bordering the cube on the right. It wouldn't make a dent in covering the extended surface of the sphere.
It is obvious to anyone with eyes that [math]4\pi r^2[/math] can't be the surface area of a sphere.
It is therefore further obvious where [math]4\pi r^2[/math] has been used in applications to determine what is or isn't well known, and therefore poor guesses masquerading as truth.
Measurements for the surface of the Earth follow [math]4\pi r^2[/math].
>510,072,000 square kilometers
>260,173,445,184,000,000 kilometers
>The Milky Way is about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilometers across
>walking around the earth, able to also walk on water, moving 1 meter to the side each time you complete a rotation, from north pole to south pole, would be 1/1000 the distance of the entire fucking galaxy, 905,000 times the width of our entire goddamn solar system
>probably all of these number measurements from human reference are made up

[Anonymous No.14835010]

Jesus Christ

when is the circumference of a circle equal to its surface area?
2pi r = 4 pi r^2

r = 1/2 r=0
QED

[Anonymous No.14835049]

>>14835010
Probably should have said, "numerically equal" since the circumference and the surface area are in different units.

2*pi*1/2 linear units = pi linear units
4*pi* (1/2)^2 area units = pi area units.

Cute how this was a troll to get at least one moron to generalize the equality of circumference to surface area to "prove" a flat earth.
1/10 but seeing as how no one got it 6/10! and twenty two internets.

[Anonymous No.14835067]

>>14835049
>Probably should have said, "numerically equal" since the circumference and the surface area are in different units.
>2*pi*1/2 linear units = pi linear units
>4*pi* (1/2)^2 area units = pi area units.
>Cute how this was a troll to get at least one moron to generalize the equality of circumference to surface area to "prove" a flat earth.
>1/10 but seeing as how no one got it 6/10! and twenty two internets.

[Anonymous No.14835295]

>>14835049

[Anonymous No.14835310]

>>14835295
3 km^2 = 3000000 m^2
9 km = 9000 m

[Anonymous No.14835313]

>>14835310
>[math]3km^2 = 3,000,000m^2[/math]

[Anonymous No.14835431]

>>14828343
>>14830837
Is there an ellipse that has the same focal distance, volume and (smallest) cross-section, numerically?

[Anonymous No.14835615]

>>14835295
the number [math]510,072,000 km^2[/math] is wrong. It's just 510,072,000km.
[math] 1km^2 = 1000m^2 = 1,000,000m \text{ : N km}^2=N*1,000,000m \\ \\ \frac{510,072,000,000\space m}{1,000,000\space m} = 510,072km^2[/math]

funny issues occur when using miles though.
Just as 510,072,000km2 is given by google as the surface area of earth, so is 196,940,000 sq mi also given.
With the radius given as 3,958.8 mi, using [math]4\pi r^2[/math] nets us 196,941,384 mi.

1 mi = 5,280 ft
1 sq mi = 5,280 ft * 5,280 ft = 27,878,400 ft

196,940,000 * 5,280 = 1,039,843,200,000 ft
1,039,843,200,000 / 27,878,400 = 37,299 sq mi

google says 37,299 sq mi = 96,604km2 = 96,604,000,000m
1609 meters in a mile is 96,604,000,000/1609 = 60,039,776 mi
60,039,776 * 5208 = 312,687,154,754 ft
312,687,154,754 / 27,878,400 = 11,216 sq mi

so 196,940,000 sq mi = 37,299 sq mi = 11,216 sq mi


google formula for sq mi to km2 is "multiply the area value by 2.59"
4 sq mi = (4 * 5208 * 5208) ft = 108,493,056 ft
4 * 2.59 = 10.36 km2
10.36 km2 = (10.36 * 1,000,000) m = 10,360,000 m
google formula for m to ft is "multiply the length value by 3.281"
10,360,000 * 3.281 = 33,991,160 ft

4 sq mi = 10.36 km2 = 10,360,000 m = 33,991,160 ft = 108,493,056 ft

possible takeaways?

1. people making up unobservably large numbers
2. unit conversion being learned and taught incorrectly
3. spherical surface area is not measured as an area but instead linearly with an assumed width to the line, as if spiraling around the sphere, peeling an apple with a peeler but just cutting 1 long curly spiral surface rind.
>in the case of kilometers, the width is 1 meter. there are 1,000 kilometers of 1 meter wide straight paths within " 1 km2 "
>in the case of miles, the width is 1 ft. there are 5,280 miles of 1 foot wide straight paths within " 1 sq mi "
4. archimedes was a retard and so is everyone else.
5. europe is excruciatingly small

[Anonymous No.14835691]

>>14835615
>5280 ft
>5208 ft

510,074,600 km2 = (510,074,600 * 1000) = 510,074,600,000 km
196,940,000 sq mi = (196,940,000 * 5280) = 1,039,843,200,000 mi

196,940,000 * 2.59 = 510,074,600

1,039,843,200,000 * 5,280 = 5,490,372,096,000,000 ft
510,074,600,000 * 1000 = 510,074,600,000,000 m
1 Meter = 3.280839895 ft

510,074,600,000,000 * 3.280839895 = 1,673,473,097,106,167 ft

5,490,372,096,000,000 ft (from sq mi)
1,673,473,097,106,167 ft (from km2)

if a km2 is km x1,000, it would appear some f*ggot foreigner thought a sq mi was x1,000 too.

[Anonymous No.14835727]

so what the fuck is the surface area of the earth

[Anonymous No.14836009]

>>14835727
[math]1[/math]

[Anonymous No.14836014]

>>14835313
3km^2=3*1000m*1000m=3,000,000m^2
lrn2math

[Anonymous No.14836017]

>>14835615
>1km2=1000m2
lol retard

[Anonymous No.14836019]

>>14835615
>1km^2=1000m^2
>m^2=m
lol retard

[Anonymous No.14836038]

>>14828343
they aren't circumference is in [m], while surface is in [m2]

[Anonymous No.14836045]

>>14836019
1000 x 1000 = ?

1000 what?
where did 1000 come from in this context?
did your mother drink a lot while pregnant, or only a little?

[Anonymous No.14836050]

>>14836014
1 km2 = 1,000,000 m = 1,000 km
1,000,000 m2 = 1,000 km2
1,000 km2 = 1,000,000,000 m = 1,000,000 km

use your fuckin head

[Anonymous No.14836204]

>>14828368
>>14828806
Why don't you plug the numbers in?

[Anonymous No.14837660]

>>14835295
3km^2 =/= (3km)^2

[Anonymous No.14838374]

>>14836038
if true, the surface area of a sphere 1 meter in diameter is 314.159...m x 1 cm.
1 m2 = 100cm x 100cm = 10,000cm = 100m
pi m2 = pi * 100m = 314.159...m
if Archimedes was right, anyway.

I feel like clocking out of reality. why are so many formulas wrong.

google says the surface area of a cone with radius 50cm and height 50cm = 18961.19 cm. Again this doesn't seem to be the case.

did I accidentally end up in the retard dimension at some point?

i don't think i belong here

[Anonymous No.14838379]

>>14828806
4π * (0.5^2 = 0.25)
R^2 crosses out the 4 and the answer is pi for surface area.

[Anonymous No.14838384]

>>14828343
The reason why the value is the same (pi) is because, let's assume the diameter is "meters"

Circumference = π meters
Surface area = π square-meters

Try not to be too niggery about it, the unit of measure is not the same. One is a linear unit, the other is a square unit.

[Anonymous No.14838397]

why are math formulas wrong on the internet

[Anonymous No.14838404]

>>14828368
lol how does it feel being the laughing stock

[Anonymous No.14838410]

>>14828343
units
now try a square with side 4

[Anonymous No.14839535]

>>14838397
what is wrong with this?

[Anonymous No.14839550]

>>14838379
That pi units squared.
Just like a square with one side of 1 has an area of 1, or in other words 1m side equals to a 1m squared surface area

[Anonymous No.14839577]

>>14828343
Surface area is in units^2. It's no more mysterious than pic related.

[Anonymous No.14839647]

>>14839577
>>14838410
what is the surface area of the earth

[Anonymous No.14841278]

here's some cool math
(pi^2 -3pi)/pi
[math]\frac{\pi ^2-3\pi}{\pi}[/math]

[Anonymous No.14841290]

>>14841278
>unreduced fraction

[Anonymous No.14841304]

>>14828368
>>14828806
High quality bait

[Anonymous No.14841313]

>>14828364
fpbp

[Anonymous No.14841315]

Why the fuck is this retarded thread getting so many replies? The absolute state of this board

[Anonymous No.14841659]

>>14841315
/sci/ struggling with primary school geometry is a pleasant break from vax threads

[Anonymous No.14843405]

>>14831051
I haven't figured out my discrepancy between [math]\frac{C^2}{2} \rightarrow \frac{C^2}{4}[/math] other than it seeming like an entire extra [math]\pi[/math] is present.

Anyway, surface area of a sphere radius 0.5 is [math]\text{absolutely not} \pi[/math]

[Anonymous No.14843430]

has no one pointed out about the different units?

3 cm^2 is not 3 cm

[Anonymous No.14843545]

>>14843430
has nothing to do with units
Archimedes formula [math]4 \pi r^2[/math] for the surface area of sphere is literally just incorrect.
I suspect he guessed.

Alternatively, he might not have understood how to visualize spheres depending on his method of measuring, but it could have been something like pic related: unintentionally adding extra-dimensional degrees of surface area by having too many pi, hard to catch as they may overlap somewhere..

[Anonymous No.14843557]

>>14843545
>has nothing to do with units
the formula for surface area gives a measure in unit^2
the formula for circumference gives a measure in unit^1

1 cm^2 is 10 times 1 cm since 1 cm = 1 * (10 mm)^2 = 100 mm^2 which is 10 times 10 mm

[Anonymous No.14843598]

>>14843557

The surface area of a sphere is [math]\pi ^2 r^2 \equiv \frac{( 2 \pi r)^2}{4} [/math], not [math]4 \pi r^2[/math].
It is a different formula with a different result.

radius = 0.5

[math]\pi ^2 0.5^2 = 2.467401... \\ \\ \frac{( 2 \pi 0.5)^2}{4} = 2.467401... \\ \\ 4 \pi 0.5^2 = 3.141592... [/math]

[frenanon No.14843760]

>>14831051
>The true surface area of a sphere is...
I think you can think of it in terms of compiling the slices of the sphere's circumference.
So you take the circumference of a sphere from the middle using the radius of the sphere.
So a sphere with r=4, take a slice of circle with r=4.

If you were to take the circumference measurenments of slices of circle as you moved down the sphere, the poles would come to a point of "0" eventually.
So we need to take the geodesic value between the 0-90°(so 45°) of the sphere's circumference; because that is the average area-value of the "slice" when calculating each slice from the equator->pole.
So, 45° is 1/8 of a full rotation, and with a radius of 4, that gives us 3.14(pi) length so if we take the circumference, and multiply it by 8 iterations, we're given the surface area
So with r=4, then C=25.13, 1/8C=pi, 8C=SurfaceArea

But yes, the math does start to become odd at smol numbers

[Anonymous No.14843786]

>>14843545
>>14843760

Since [math]\frac{2 \pi r}{4} \approx 90 ^{\circ} [/math], it is reasonable to assume after scribing a single circle on 1 axis, it is necessary to turn 90 degrees around the center to align with a different axis, producing the 3D shape

[Anonymous No.14843912]

>>14836050
>km^2 = m
lol retard

[Anonymous No.14844000]

is it possible to go to the moon without needing to know surface area?
mars?

aren't there certain assumptions about mass of the earth and required delta for orbiting?

how has archimedes fucking dumb formula gone unchecked for 2300 years?
are 99.9% of humans just reactionary and unthinking?

has anyone even been so far as to do more like?

[frenanon No.14846273]

bump

[Anonymous No.14847155]

as the volume of a sphere was based on the surface area of the sphere, the new sphere volume formula is [math]\frac{\pi ^2 r^3}{3}[/math]

[Anonymous No.14847650]

Surface Area of a Sphere: [math]\pi ^2 r^2 [/math]

Volume of a Sphere: [math]\frac{ \pi ^2 r^3}{3}[/math]

implications for using incorrect formulas for 2000 years:
do we actually know the size of anything that is a sphere?
do we actually know how much shit is supposed to go inside a sphere?
what about things which have been claimed defacto to be true, yet relied on faulty math which didn't exist?


potentially the entire recorded history of measurements are wrong, and we also probably live in a schizo world full of pathological liars.

time to fucking delete the system32 folder of earth and reformat for a fresh install.

[Anonymous No.14847680]

>>14828343
The equations overlap at 0.5 because it is 2 and 4 and ^2

[Anonymous No.14848892]

>>14847680
they overlap because archimedes' formula was wrong

[Anonymous No.14849191]

where a cube obviously has 6 sides, I think a sphere may only really have 2 sides. It's becoming some strange artifact in my math that it looks like spheres cheat curvature in a funny way, which yes they do. Traveling a quarter the way around a sphere, turning 90 degrees, traveling another quarter, turning 90 degrees, and one more quarter gets you right back where you started in a 270 degree triangle. The weird part is how a sphere intersects a normal object like a cube. The obfuscated faces on a cube subducting the sphere might have the sphere peaking out over each of the 6 faces clearly, yet the traced circle areas on the cube would have more surface area missing from the cube than the sphere's measured surface area for those sections.

i need empirical physical testing before I go further since things are teetering between 2.96 and 4.93

bros spheres are bullshit

[frenanon No.14850558]

bump

[frenanon No.14850559]

>>14849191
>bros spheres are bullshit
I certainly don't trust them.

[Anonymous No.14851526]

>>14836045
>where did 1000 come from

[Anonymous No.14851583]

>>14847650
>Volume of a Sphere: π2r33
lolno

[Anonymous No.14852557]

after much thought, the actual true surface area of a sphere is either

[math](\pi ^2 r^2 ) + (2 \pi r)[/math]


not joking

[Anonymous No.14852580]

>>14852557
insanity isn't a joke

[Anonymous No.14852665]

>>14828343
What the fuck do you mean how?
One is 1D, the other is 2D.
How the fuck is this a thread on /sci/ and why does it have more than one reply?

[Anonymous No.14852719]

>>14852557
>>14852580
i was joking lmao

the walking maneuver i am trying has a quirk where there are n/2 fewer steps for as large as n is. the additional 2pi*r came from this.

[Anonymous No.14852834]

>>14830358

/thread

Retards still arguing about it 80 posts later

[Anonymous No.14853170]

>>14828364
>diametre is 1 n
why not just say "n"?

[frenanon No.14853193]

>>14853170
i

[Anonymous No.14853247]

don't let subhumans on 4chan dissuade you from knowing better. [math]\pi ^2 r^2[/math] is the surface area of a sphere.

[Anonymous No.14853263]

>>14852719
the result here when [eqn]25v= \big((\sum_1^{25} x = 325)-\frac{25}{2}\big)[/eqn] is the same result from [eqn]\frac{(\frac{2\pi r}{4})^2}{2}[/eqn]

[Anonymous No.14855076]

[eqn]\frac{5}{4} \pi ^2 r^2 [/eqn]

[Anonymous No.14857571]

what is the formula for the surface area of a sphere and how do we know its correct?

[Anonymous No.14857656]

>>14853263
>[math]\frac{(\frac{pi r}{2})^2}{2}[/math]
this is reduced

[Anonymous No.14858265]

>>14830229
>sphere has more ((surface area)) [than a circle of same diameter has area]
dude a circle with the same diameter has an area of 0.25 pi.