[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 868 KB, 1280x1920, wildberger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9853850 No.9853850 [Reply] [Original]

if there is such a number you call "pi" , could you write it down for me ?

>> No.9853855

you just did

>> No.9853857

>>9853850
pls draw triangle with side length of sqrt(2)i, kthxbai

>> No.9853862

>>9853850
any circles circumference/its diameter

boom

>> No.9853866

>>9853862
Prove to me circles exist

>> No.9853869

>>9853857
could you please write out what sqrt(2) actually is ?

>> No.9853872

>>9853866
O

>> No.9853873

>>9853872
That's not a proof

>> No.9853877

>>9853862
Does this work in any distance metric?

>> No.9853880

>>9853866
Any mathematician who seriously doubts the existence of circles can be safely ignored imo.

>> No.9853881

>>9853877
It falls apart when the distance is infinite

>> No.9853884

>>9853880
And yet you still can't prove that they do
>Really makes you think

>> No.9853885

>>9853880
prove the existence of circles then

>> No.9853886

>>9853884
>>9853885
ITT drooling morons

>> No.9853887

>>9853880

Prove it

>> No.9853889

>>9853886
ITT people who call others retarded and yet can't even prove circles exist

>> No.9853890

>>9853886
>ITT drooling morons
Prove it.

>> No.9853891

>>9853881

Also don't work if you have a unit squircle.

>> No.9853918

A circle is a collection of points equally distanced from one point.
A point, we don't define a point.

>> No.9853921

>>9853918
So if points have no distance then how do you magic it into existence by putting a lot of them next to each other?
Infinity times 0 is still 0

>> No.9853922

>>9853918
>we don't define a point
Ya we do

>> No.9853925

>>9853918
try again

>> No.9853926

>>9853922
In classical Euclidean Geometry you do not define a point.
Who are "we" then, and how do all of you define a point?

>> No.9853927

>>9853922
Define it then big brain

>> No.9853931

>>9853921
Why do you think that points have no distance?
And what do you mean when you say "infinity"?

>> No.9853934

>>9853926
>in classical eucliean geometry we do not define a point

get off my cartesian plane, you pleb

>> No.9853935

>>9853931
They are defined as such and infinity is the sideways 8

>> No.9853936

>>9853934
>he honest to god believes that a circle (x-p)^2+(y-q)^2=r^2 isn't the same as the statment collection of points equally distanced from one point

what was that about the completeness of R??

>> No.9853940

>>9853936
>equally spaced
>isn't defining space

>> No.9853944

>>9853940
Space is the absence of defined points.

>> No.9853947

>>9853944
How is that definition useful in any way?

>> No.9853949

>>9853947
It isn't. You quoted me saying "spaced" when such a word isn't present. Try again.

>> No.9853952
File: 61 KB, 702x813, 20co4k.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9853952

>>9853944
>boi

>> No.9853956

>>9853934
I didn't expect the Cartesian inquisition.
Now your argument is becoming circular.
Remember that the moron does not even know about pi. How will he know about all the points (x,y) in the Cartesian plane that have distance 1 to (0,0)? Like for x=pi/4, he thinks there is a hole there, dodn't he?

>> No.9853963

>>9853956

Exactly! What are these points?

>> No.9853979

>>9853963
Listen carefully, I will explain this only once:
The points in the Cartesian plane that belong to the circle with radius 1 and center in the origo are exactly the points (x,y) for which x^2+y^2=1 holds.
You probably knew that and you are just trolling. Good for you, because of the amount of satisfaction you certainly must be getting from it, between the fapping sessions in your mum's basement.
There was no reason to introduce the Cartesian machinery into it anyway. The circle with a given point as center and a given distance (between two given points, say) as its radius is just as clearly defined in Euclidean setting.

>> No.9853986

>>9853979

Nigga, according to who's metric?

>> No.9853990
File: 31 KB, 690x343, TRINITY___arXivRemoved.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9853990

π

>> No.9853991

>>9853986
The Euclidean metric.
You smokin anything you shouldn't?

>> No.9853992

>>9853918
>A circle is a collection
Can you write them down??
HUH

>A point, we don't define a point.
LMAO

>> No.9853998

>>9853991
Who the fuck said that we were parameterizing in the Euclidean metric, you hopeless brainlet?

>> No.9853999

>>9853866
your IQ

>> No.9854000

>>9853999
>Believes in IQ

>> No.9854008

>>9853998
That follows from the context, since that is how you get geometric things known as "circles", which are the things that bear some relations to the OP's question about pi.

>> No.9854013

>>9854008
You are aware that metric balls (((the circles of other metrics))) are a thing right?

>> No.9854021

>>9854013
That has got nothing to do with anything in this thread. Jeez, you cannot even troll properly. Yeah, right, let us agree on the taxicab metric from hereon, but YOU will be the one to explain to the OP going from there.
Anyway, just do not be too discouraged by the fact that you understand squat.
Do not take a job at Burger King turning patties.
The mathematical complexity of such a task is bound to overwhelm your lone brain cell.

>> No.9854031

>>9854021

It has everything to do with this thread. All you have done is consistently ad hom and downplay OPs very valid concerns of the problematic irrational constant pi invented by "transcendentalist" quasi-religious scum such as yourself. If you could instead address the problem at hand instead of intellectually grandstanding, we could begin working as a cohesive mathematical force to dissect this issue. But until then, you remain an apathetic snob. Shame on you sir.

>> No.9854035

>>9853992
yeah I can

(x-p)^2+(y-q)^2=r^2

>> No.9854037

>>9854035
Uh, says who?

>> No.9854040

>>9854035
>(x-p)^2+(y-q)^2=r^2
I can't see a single number there.

Just because I can write 1/x=0 does not mean there is a solution, or that I can give all solution.

>> No.9854041

>>9854037
Cartesius

>> No.9854042

>>9854041
You've chosen an absurd and arbitrary definition.

>> No.9854045

>>9854040
>I can't see a single number there.
I can see three 2's.
You're wrong. Try again.

>>9854042
Prove that it is absurd/arbitrary.

>> No.9854048

3.1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679 8214808651 3282306647 0938446095 5058223172 5359408128 4811174502 8410270193 8521105559 6446229489 5493038196 4428810975 6659334461 2847564823 3786783165 2712019091 4564856692 3460348610 4543266482 1339360726 0249141273 7245870066 0631558817 4881520920 9628292540 9171536436 7892590360 0113305305 4882046652 1384146951 9415116094 3305727036 5759591953 0921861173 8193261179 3105118548 0744623799 6274956735 1885752724 8912279381 8301194912 9833673362 4406566430 8602139494 6395224737 1907021798 6094370277 0539217176 2931767523 8467481846 7669405132 0005681271 4526356082 7785771342 7577896091 7363717872 1468440901 2249534301 4654958537 1050792279 6892589235 4201995611 2129021960 8640344181 5981362977 4771309960 5187072113 4999999837 2978049951 0597317328 1609631859 5024459455 3469083026 4252230825 3344685035 2619311881 7101000313 7838752886 5875332083 8142061717 7669147303 5982534904 2875546873 1159562863 8823537875 9375195778 1857780532 1712268066 1300192787 6611195909 2164201989 ...

>> No.9854051

>>9854045
>I can see three 2's.
So 2 is part of the circle?

>> No.9854052

>>9854045
It has nothing to do with pi, for starters.

>> No.9854053

>>9854048
>...
Fuck off with that pseudo science.

>> No.9854054

>>9854052
But, anon, how would you define the ratio between circumference of a circle and it's diameter?

>> No.9854055

>>9854054
3.2

>> No.9854057

>>9854055
How? Show your work.

>> No.9854060

>>9854057
I personally did it with some string and a ruler

>> No.9854062

>>9854053
You want an EXACT definition of Pi?

>> No.9854063

>>9854054
Define the circle

>> No.9854065

>>9854063
see>>9853918
>>9853936
>>9853944

>> No.9854066

>>9854062
No, I want that you show me the number.

>> No.9854072

>>9854066
So, you want the exact number that is Pi?
i.e, an exact definition of pi?
Maybe I'm not understanding what it is you're asking for here.

>> No.9854073

>>9854065
But you didn't, anon. You chose a definition of the circle and declared it gospel. Who made you ring master?

>> No.9854076

>>9854072
>So, you want the exact number that is Pi?
I just want the number.

I can show you a 2 or a 3/10, but you haven't showed my pi yet.

>> No.9854077

>>9854073
What? I didn't choose it, I defined it.
Define your circle.

>> No.9854080

>>9854077
An object who's ratio between its diameter and its circumference is pi 0.o but you've not provided that object

>> No.9854082

>>9854080
I have. It's the collection of points equally distanced from an origin point.

>> No.9854083

>>9854082
In what metric?

>> No.9854085

>>9854083
Unit point.

>> No.9854091

>>9854085
My dude, this is not a metric that defines a shape of points equidistant from the origin.

>> No.9854092

>>9854076
I still don't understand what you're asking for.
How is 22/7 or 355/113 less valid than 3/10?

>> No.9854094

>>9854091
It is. You're an idiot. Read Euclid.

>> No.9854097

>>9854094
>muh fifth postulate

>> No.9854098

>>9854080
His issue seems to be an instance of reification where because there is a lack of belief in irrational numbers existing in the real world we therefore cannot use them as abstract concepts to solve problems
The real way to win a conversation with somebody like this is to concede that mathematics is just an abstraction

>> No.9854100

>>9854092
>How is 22/7 or 355/113 less valid than 3/10?
Neither 22/7 nor 355/113 appear to be pi.

>> No.9854103

>>9854100
If you're asking for the exact number that is pi, then how do you already know the exact value to be able to make that judgement?
Again, what proof of what exactly are you asking for?

>> No.9854104

>>9854098
Anon /s

>> No.9854109

>>9854103
>If you're asking for the exact number that is pi, then how do you already know the exact value to be able to make that judgement?
Firstly, both numbers are different, so I know that both of them can't be pie simultaneously, secondly pi isn't expressible as a fraction.

>Again, what proof of what exactly are you asking for?
pi

>> No.9854113

>>9854109
>pi is irrational

How do you calculate something that isn't a fraction?

>> No.9854117

>>9854109
I'm still not getting your question.
Are you contesting that circles exist? Are you contesting that diameters of circles exist?

>> No.9854121

>>9853880
if you can't prove it then you have to assume it.

>> No.9854134

>>9854117
Stop being retarded and look at the pic in OP.

>> No.9854136

>>9854134
I don't know who that is and I don't care enough to google it. I thought we were talking about circles.

>> No.9854142

>>9854136
I was meming, retard.
The guy in the picture is Wildberger an ultra finitist.

>> No.9854192

>>9853850
I don't get the butthurt. Do we really NEED irrationals? Seems obvious to me they don't 'exist' in the same way as the natural numbers or even all rationals.
Just treat their definitions as prescriptions on how to obtain them. You'll fail, but you can get arbitrary precision, so just formulate your theorems in terms of that. Classic fucking epsilon delta.

>> No.9854212

>>9854192
>Do we really NEED irrationals?
Yes, we do, the entire framework of modern analysis relies on the real numbers, the rationals are by no means good enough to keep the theory afloat.

>Just treat their definitions as prescriptions on how to obtain them.
Most real numbers can not be expressed, the """proof""" for that is that there are countably many symbols, which can be arranged in countably many ways.

>so just formulate your theorems in terms of that.
That is an ENORMOUS task.

>Classic fucking epsilon delta.
Almost all of them rely on the completeness of the real numbers.

>> No.9854252

>>9854212
>Most real numbers can not be expressed
That's the point. When you say "measure a circle" or "compute this infinite series", that's something no one can do exactly. Hence they are presciptions. If you follow this or that guide you can compute pi as well as you like. But the presciption is not the object itself.

>> No.9854256

>>9854252
>But the presciption is not the object itself.
That is formally wrong, a real number is an equivalence class of rational numbers, formally pi is THE EXACT SAME as a series converging to it.

And by "not be expressed" I meant that there is no way to write symbols down describing it, there are no prescriptions, no way to even talk about them using any symbols.

>> No.9854258

>>9853850
Proof there are only finitely many numbers. Yall cant write them all down, so they dont exist.

>> No.9854269

>>9854252
Exactly, so 1/3 doesn't exist.

>> No.9854275
File: 66 KB, 277x198, 005_1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9854275

>>9854269
So only terminating rationals exist. It's not even just irrationals. What's the test for terminality?