/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2473311]

Disprove it.

[Anonymous No.2473317]

>>>/b/306995654

[Anonymous No.2473321]

It's animooted for greater justice

[Anonymous No.2473322]

>>2473317
Nope.

[Anonymous No.2473323]

>>2473322
you're retarded, just go and die

[Anonymous No.2473324]

>>2473323
dont you mean "your"?

[Anonymous No.2473325]

>>2473322
you're retarded, just go and die

[Anonymous No.2473326]

>>2473321
That is a much easier way of explaining it than i was years back

[Anonymous No.2473328]

I first learned cutting corners without going diagonally doesn't shorten the path you take when I was like 8. I felt very proud.

[Anonymous No.2473329]

>>2473326
Thats because I am fucking smart

[Anonymous No.2473330]

>>2473324

not sure if troll or just stupid

(you're - you are)

[Anonymous No.2473331]

you know they actually believed this in Illinois and made a law that said pie was 4

[Anonymous No.2473333]

>>2473323
Not my fault you STILL haven't won in that thread.
>>2473321
That's just a diagram based off the currently accept principles. Visually, it can't be microscopically precise, so I can't accept that.

[Anonymous No.2473332]

Come on then /sci/ what's the mathematical proof?

Because >>2473321 isn't gonna cut it

[Anonymous No.2473336]

>>2473331

I think that was Indiana, not Illinois.

[Anonymous No.2473342]

>>2473333
>quads

[Anonymous No.2473347]

The subtly of this pic is amazing. Most troll science/math pics are simplistic, but this one is almost a work of art.

[Anonymous No.2473352]

Come on, /sci/, can't you do better than that? Or are we going to need to rewrite mathematics?

[Anonymous No.2473356]

http://qntm.org/trollpi

[Anonymous No.2473357]

>>2473333

If you repeat that ad infinitum you end up with a path with an infinite number of vertices, but always twice as many as there are to a circle. Therefore you always have a longer path than that of a circle. Therefore pi is not 4.

[Anonymous No.2473358]

even if you repeat to infinity there will still be corners, it will never be smooth, just appear to be

seriously /sci/. im fifteen and drunk

[Anonymous No.2473363]

OP's image makes an approximation between the corner-cutting polygon and a circle. However, you can't reduce a diagonal curved line to a zigzag of corners.

See the panel where perimeter = 4? The perimeter of that square is clearly larger than that of the circle, precisely because the shape of the circle shaves off travel time at the corners. When you cut corners, you reduce area, but perimeter remains the same. This means that the corner-cutting approximation of a circle is the same thing as the original square. It still takes the same amount of time to travel around. The only thing preventing you from seeing this is that the zigzags are too small to see. But they still exist, and if the perimeter still remains the same, they still count. Zoom in, and the approximation clearly takes more time to travel around than the circle.

[Anonymous No.2473368]

>>2473363

i just said this but simpler in the post above yours :D

[Anonymous No.2473369]

>>2473368
And you had to make a new post in the hope that someone would give you even an inch of credit?

[Anonymous No.2473373]

>>2473369

no shit sherlock, im fifteen

[Anonymous No.2473379]

>>2473373
reported

[Anonymous No.2473417]

http://www.askamathematician.com/?p=4937

Grow up kids.

[Anonymous No.2473427]

>>2473330
>not sure if trolling or just very stupid

[Anonymous No.2473463]

>>2473332
you tell me ONE reason why the picture should work apart from "hurf"-reasoning.
You know, maths doesn't work on the principle "prove me wrong", it's the other way around. Of course that'd be a problem, since you obviously haven't got the slightest amount of math education and couldn't even prove an axiom that was taking a dump right on your mums face.

Protip: you're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.2473474]

>>2473356
Whoa-ho-hooo there. This almost shut me up, but then something caught my eye. The genius behind that post at one point commented, "If you repeat the corner-concaving for a finite number of steps you NEVER get a circle and the perimeter is ALWAYS 4. But if you 'repeat for an infinite number of steps' i.e. take the limit at infinity, you DO have a circle of perimeter pi." Um... What? He's postulating that the infinite repetition of the procedure transforms the sawtooth edge into a perfect curve, and stating that any gradient is removed SIMPLY BECAUSE the process is infinite. At one point, I'm pretty sure he even substitutes 0 for the value of f_∞(x) just because he says it is and that's what he wants it to be. Sorry, but no. Any value to an infinite power is going to be infinite. The gradient doesn't disappear—it only becomes imperceptible. Given this invalidates the driving force behind his proof, the entire thing falls flat.

>>2473417
THIS guy is right. Thank you, anon, for bringing the tranquility of knowledge back into my soul.

[Anonymous No.2473497]

>>2473474
>trying to argue against a rigorous proof using hurf-reasoning
Oh, the hurf!

Seriously, shut the fuck up. Look the definition of uniform convergence of curves up and then come again and say the iteration doesn't converge to the circle.

Of course you will never understand even the most basic notions of limits.
For example, the iteration 1/1, 1/(1+1), 1/(1+1+1), ..., 1/n, 1/(n+1), .. will never yield 0, so if we repeat the process to infinity it won't be 0.
tl;dr: HURF TURF HURP HURP HURFFF!

Protip: you're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.2473516]

>>2473497
>I'll call him an idiot and then reiterate what he just said in order to prove him wrong!

[Anonymous No.2473545]

>>2473516
lulz, you really are this stupid?

OF FUCKING COURSE the limit of 1/n as n tends to infinity is ZERO, MOTHERFUCKING ZERO, you shitfucking dickface.

I was mimicking his fucktardation.
Jesus fuck, you should wear a bell around your neck to warn people away when you uncontrollably start spraying verbal feces all over everything.

[Archimedes No.2473565]

If you could prove a negative. This would be it. Your logic is terribly flawed. Garbage in, garbage out. Oh yeah, this was posted on before-chan

[Anonymous No.2473582]

[Anonymous No.2473589]

>>2473545
>I'll do it again!

[Anonymous No.2473600]

You guys are kidding right?

IF YOU CONTINUE CUTTING YOU WILL MAKE AN ANOTHER SQUARE, NOT A FUCKING CIRCLE.
TRY IT.

sorry for shouting.

[Anonymous No.2473644]

OBSERVE MAH POWAH!!!

[Anonymous No.2473649]

>>2473644

This proves that circles are triangles...

[Anonymous No.2473666]

Using the same method, I have discovered something even more shocking.

[skinnyfag !VIRGIN/FJM No.2473704]

Because if you zoom in the edges will always be jagged and not a circle. Even though you couldnt see this from a normal distance, the more times you cutout, yes it appears to get closer to a circle but there are more edges so it never becomes closer to becoming a circle

[Anonymous No.2473757]

>>2473336
It's actually Illinois. The law wasn't passed though.

[Anonymous No.2473847]

>>2473311
lol'd

[Anonymous No.2473884]

>>2473644
True statements with a troll face is maximum trolling.