Post by: aetzbar on 10/09/2017 09:08:56
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/09/2017 10:11:28
Post by: aetzbar on 10/09/2017 12:35:54
From mistakes that have lasted thousands of years.
This equation is such a mistake.
diameters ratio = circumference ratio
Such error produces another error, of a fixed pi number
Post by: evan_au on 10/09/2017 13:00:10
Quote
diagonal length of a selected square, along the circumference of the square, the length of the diagonal must be multiplied by a fixed number that does not existIf we use a unit square (side length = 1 unit), the "circumference" = 4 units.
And the diagonal = SQRT(2) units, or roughly 1.414213...
The ratio of diagonal to circumference of a square is roughly 2.8284....
As for this number "not existing", Greek mathematicians around 400BC were familiar with ratios of the form X/Y, where X and Y are whole numbers. Today we would call these "Rational" numbers, because they can be expressed as a ratio of whole numbers.
I vaguely recall it was someone from the school of Pythagoras who showed that SQRT(2) was not a rational number, and this really upset the ancient Greek mathematicians. The guy who released this secret was severely punished.
But today, we call this an "irrrational" number - this doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it is just in a different category.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_2#Proofs_of_irrationality
If you want to see some even more obscure numbers, look up "Transcendental" numbers. Pi is one of these.
Post by: aetzbar on 10/09/2017 13:20:42
If it existed, we would record it.
But that's not the point.
Even though this number does not exist, it is possible to write the equation of squares
The ratio of the diagonals = the circumference ratio.
But in circles it is impossible to write a similar equation.
The diameters ratio of circles (larger.... not = ) than the circumference ratio.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/09/2017 13:39:14
S.O.S. Save the mathematiciansThe square is just an imaginable pattern of space, the angle is just a bigger square that is angled relative to another square. The circle is almost perfection , r remaining the same always, but still an imaginable pattern of space.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/09/2017 13:45:10
From mistakes that have lasted thousands of years.
This equation is such a mistake.
diameters ratio = circumference ratio
Such error produces another error, of a fixed pi number
You have not provided any evidence that you are right.
You have failed to refute the evidence that you are wrong.
So you are not doing science.
So, why are you here?
Post by: aetzbar on 10/09/2017 14:07:11
The proof is physical - of measurement.
Mathematics does not know how to handle closed round lines.
Mathematics can handle only straight-line segments.
Mathematics did not prove the equation
The ratio of diameters of two circles = their ratio of circumference.
This equation can only be refuted by measuring.
It's strange but true - math does not know how to handle circles
Post by: guest39538 on 10/09/2017 14:16:08
There is no mathematical proof of the subject of circles.What circles? Where are you getting circles from?
The proof is physical - of measurement.
Mathematics does not know how to handle closed round lines.
Mathematics can handle only straight-line segments.
Mathematics did not prove the equation
The ratio of diameters of two circles = their ratio of circumference.
This equation can only be refuted by measuring.
It's strange but true - math does not know how to handle circles
Post by: aetzbar on 10/09/2017 14:22:17
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/09/2017 14:30:30
From the mechanical industry, every steel cylinder produced in the lathe is almost perfectVery few things are as nearly perfectly round as the sphere of silicon they made for determining the mass of the kilogram.
That experiment verified that pi is the same for spheres the size of atoms as it is for the whole sphere they made- about 10cm in diameter to within the limits of their measurement- which was about 20 parts per billion.
You already know that the experiment shows that you are wrong.
I have also pointed out that the shadow of a circle (cast by a small light source onto a flat surface) is also a circle and simple geometry shows that the ratios of the diameter to the circumference of the circle must be the same for the ring as for the shadow.
So pi must be the same for the ring and the shadow.
So you know you are wrong.
Why keep trying to spread this silly lie?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/09/2017 14:30:46
From the mechanical industry, every steel cylinder produced in the lathe is almost perfectGood! I am glad you related it to an atomic formation rather than imaginable patterns of space.
So you are saying r*4=circumference instead of :
Quote
C = pi * d calculates the circumference (distance around the outside of the circle). D in the formula refers to the diameter which is the width of the circle. The formula for the area of a circle is A = pi * r * r where r is the radius (diameter / 2).
Or am I misunderstanding you somewhere?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/09/2017 14:33:18
It is not silly, try being a bit calmer and explaining better rather than ''barking'' at the poster. Perhaps this person just needs to discuss things for their own mind. I will discuss it with them .From the mechanical industry, every steel cylinder produced in the lathe is almost perfectVery few things are as nearly perfectly round as the sphere of silicon they made for determining the mass of the kilogram.
That experiment verified that pi is the same for spheres the size of atoms as it is for the whole sphere they made- about 10cm in diameter to within the limits of their measurement- which was about 20 parts per billion.
You already know that the experiment shows that you are wrong.
I have also pointed out that the shadow of a circle (cast by a small light source onto a flat surface) is also a circle and simple geometry shows that the ratios of the diameter to the circumference of the circle must be the same for the ring as for the shadow.
So pi must be the same for the ring and the shadow.
So you know you are wrong.
Why keep trying to spread this silly lie?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/09/2017 14:48:25
It is not silly, try being a bit calmer and explaining better rather than ''barking'' at the poster. Perhaps this person just needs to discuss things for their own mind. I will discuss it with them .From the mechanical industry, every steel cylinder produced in the lathe is almost perfectVery few things are as nearly perfectly round as the sphere of silicon they made for determining the mass of the kilogram.
That experiment verified that pi is the same for spheres the size of atoms as it is for the whole sphere they made- about 10cm in diameter to within the limits of their measurement- which was about 20 parts per billion.
You already know that the experiment shows that you are wrong.
I have also pointed out that the shadow of a circle (cast by a small light source onto a flat surface) is also a circle and simple geometry shows that the ratios of the diameter to the circumference of the circle must be the same for the ring as for the shadow.
So pi must be the same for the ring and the shadow.
So you know you are wrong.
Why keep trying to spread this silly lie?
Are you aware that this isn't the first time he has been told the truth and that he just keeps ignoring it?
Post by: aetzbar on 10/09/2017 14:56:16
I know my idea sounds strange.
But every revolutionary idea sounds strange at first.
What do you suggest ? Shut up?
Or wait for your judgment?
It is best to wait until a scientific institution conducts the experiment.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/09/2017 15:00:57
I guessed that, but as a forum that is here to explain things, I think it is up to us as members to explain. He is not ignoring it, he just does not understand which is a difference. Relative to him because of his mindset, he is correct and is ''seeing'' something we are missing. If he discusses this with me I will hopefully change his mindset and help him to see his own error.It is not silly, try being a bit calmer and explaining better rather than ''barking'' at the poster. Perhaps this person just needs to discuss things for their own mind. I will discuss it with them .From the mechanical industry, every steel cylinder produced in the lathe is almost perfectVery few things are as nearly perfectly round as the sphere of silicon they made for determining the mass of the kilogram.
That experiment verified that pi is the same for spheres the size of atoms as it is for the whole sphere they made- about 10cm in diameter to within the limits of their measurement- which was about 20 parts per billion.
You already know that the experiment shows that you are wrong.
I have also pointed out that the shadow of a circle (cast by a small light source onto a flat surface) is also a circle and simple geometry shows that the ratios of the diameter to the circumference of the circle must be the same for the ring as for the shadow.
So pi must be the same for the ring and the shadow.
So you know you are wrong.
Why keep trying to spread this silly lie?
Are you aware that this isn't the first time he has been told the truth and that he just keeps ignoring it?
However until I understand his idea, I withhold judgement. There is a chance he could be correct, but without understanding exactly his notion to his mindset, I could never be sure.
Can you explain his notion to me?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/09/2017 15:03:49
What should I do ?You should start off really slow and explain your idea. Try to not use science terms, try to explain in simple form . Maybe an indirect approach.
I know my idea sounds strange.
But every revolutionary idea sounds strange at first.
What do you suggest ? Shut up?
Or wait for your judgment?
It is best to wait until a scientific institution conducts the experiment.
i.e I have a cake, the top of the cake is a circle shape, I can measure the diameter, the diameter measures 10 cm.
Please continue my sentence and explain your idea this way so everyone understands your idea.
Post by: aetzbar on 10/09/2017 15:11:34
The fact is, it always replaces a round line, with tiny bits of straight line.
No way ? Why the change?
Imagine that there is a question on a straight line, and replace it with a round line.
It is unacceptable.
Thus, it is forbidden to replace a round line with straight line segments.
But if we do not change ... mathematics can not work.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/09/2017 15:20:39
You have to agree that mathematics does not know how to handle round lines.We will never get to the bottom of this unless you put some effort in to explaining your notion. At the moment you are just speaking in ''gibberish'' without really explaining anything that normal people could understand.
The fact is, it always replaces a round line, with tiny bits of straight line.
No way ? Why the change?
Imagine that there is a question on a straight line, and replace it with a round line.
It is unacceptable.
Thus, it is forbidden to replace a round line with straight line segments.
But if we do not change ... mathematics can not work.
You say:
Quote
Thus, it is forbidden to replace a round line with straight line segments.
Forbidden by whom?
The straight line is an equivalent to the ''round line'' and directly proportional in length to the ''round line''. We tend to say curvature though rather than a ''round line'' . Please use the term curvature to explain your ''round line''.
Post by: aetzbar on 10/09/2017 15:23:12
If I say math does not know how to handle round lines, it sounds very strange.
But that's the truth.
The mathematics of lines is based on Pythagorean theorem, and has only straight line segments.
The Pythagoras theorem does not work with circular line segments.
Therefore, mathematicians always replaced a round line, in many straight line segments.
In this change the mathematicians made a terrible mistake.
I try to correct this mistake.
Post by: aetzbar on 10/09/2017 15:29:48
Post by: guest39538 on 10/09/2017 15:32:02
I understand so much that they do not understand me.To me , you sound rather confused in your own notion. I know this because otherwise you would be able to explain it simply.
If I say math does not know how to handle round lines, it sounds very strange.
But that's the truth.
The mathematics of lines is based on Pythagorean theorem, and has only straight line segments.
The Pythagoras theorem does not work with circular line segments.
Therefore, mathematicians always replaced a round line, in many straight line segments.
In this change the mathematicians made a terrible mistake.
I try to correct this mistake.
You keep on about linearity and curvatures but are not really explaining the problem. Now I think what you are saying is that in science instead of using curvatures to calculate things, ''they'' convert the curvature into a linearity because it is just simpler easier to work with.
Now I assume the linearity is equal to the curvature line length, so what's the problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/09/2017 15:42:50
maybe this file will helpOK, I can observe from your link that you have a proper interest in science and have put some considerable thought into this. I will not just dismiss your notion at a glance .
I asked you where you were getting a circle from earlier in the thread and you stated gearing in mechanics. However your link seems to be drifting more into the space-time continuum and of space itself. I must firstly correct you on :
Quote
Line is the basic concept of geometry
A line is two things:
1)Imaginable dimensions of space relative to the observer.
2)A defining formation of an atomic structure.
Now only number 2 is absolutely relative, so if you are talking about number 1, you might as well give up on the idea.
Post by: aetzbar on 10/09/2017 16:02:42
The line has a real length, and a shape.
Each closed round line has a certain length and a certain uniform shape.
The actual length will be expressed with the amount of mm (as 128 mm)
And a new form with a certain pi (between 3.1416 and 3.164)
It's basically the whole idea
There is a clear connection between the actual length of a closed round line and its pi value
Post by: guest39538 on 10/09/2017 16:03:35
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: guest39538 on 10/09/2017 16:17:22
Take any circled face object such as a clock.
Measure using a measuring tape the diameter across the face of the clock
Then use the present calculation pi * D = C
Then I want you to measure a piece of string to the exact length of the result.
Then I want you to place the string around the clock faces circumference and show your results.
Post by: aetzbar on 10/09/2017 16:18:10
A circle is a closed round line, of a uniform shape, but also unique
For a closed round line with an actual length of 1 mm, it has a uniform but also unique shape.
For a closed round line with an actual length of 1000 mm, it has a uniform but also unique shape.
A closed round line always has a certain uniform shape.
The person who expresses the "particular" is a particular pie.
Post by: aetzbar on 10/09/2017 16:29:56
The valuable experiment is described in the article, and this experiment presents a ratio number measurement.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/09/2017 16:57:01
The practical results of such an experiment have no value.Huh......science is the practice of things that are practical and work. The experiment I gave you shows the maths is correct and you are trying to dispute this very fact. All circles comply to this experiment regardless of diameter showing your idea is flawed.
The valuable experiment is described in the article, and this experiment presents a ratio number measurement.
I think you might be in a ''place'' where I was a while back. It is called delusions of grandeur and is a mental illness brought on by stress. The reality is you are not seeing things straight because you have escaped the world by placing your mind into science. This is a sense of an escape from reality for you, trust me I have been there.
You can not argue axiom facts are incorrect, the experiment I give you shows axiom correctness, so regardless what you think in your reality you are living at the moment, I assure you they are correct in this matter.
Post by: aetzbar on 10/09/2017 17:54:03
I do not ask for confirmation of the idea I presented.
The confirmation will come (in due time) from the physical reality.
I propose a detailed experiment, and expect a scientific institution to conduct it.
This is the experiment of the 21st century, and it will prove that the pi is not a fixed number.
This experiment will prove that mathematics has erred for hundreds of years when it taught that Pi is a fixed number.
The disagreement with the idea is clear and understandable, and I am grateful for the opportunity to present it
Post by: evan_au on 10/09/2017 19:43:03
Quote from: aetzbar
Even though ( √2 ) does not exist, it is possible to write the equation of squares√2 can be derived by solving this equation: x2-2 = 0
But in circles it is impossible to write a similar equation.
- This is a "second-order polynomial", ie the highest power of x is 2.
- You can never write it out exactly as a decimal
- But you can work it out very accurately using the Newton-Raphson method
- Or you can just write it as √2 ; all mathematicians will know what you mean.
π can be derived by solving this equation: x = 4TAN-1(1)
- Unfortunately, all the trigonometric functions (SIN, COS, TAN-1) cannot be expressed as a 2nd-order polynomial
- In fact, if you try to express it as a polynomial, you need a polynomial of infinite degree
- See previous discussion about old-time mathematicians being allergic to infinities
- You can never write π out exactly as a decimal
- But you can work it out very accurately using some series approximations that converge fairly quickly
- Or you can just write it as π; all mathematicians will know what you mean.
As for being allergic to infinite series, they actually can produce well-defined results provided you watch a few conditions:
- There may be some values where the result approaches infinity (TAN does this); this defines a "radius of convergence"; stay well within the radius of convergence
- Some functions are periodic (SIN, TAN and COS do this); rather than calculate the function for a large x, use the periodic property to calculate a smaller value of x that yields the same answer
- There are well-defined criteria for convergence of a geometric series. Ensure that your complicated infinite series converges faster than a converging geometric series (for some power of x).
Post by: David Cooper on 10/09/2017 19:56:30
And a new form with a certain pi (between 3.1416 and 3.164)
Where are you getting these inflated numbers from? Why don't you approach this like a mathematician, looking at a square, then a pentagon, then a hexagon, etc., increasing the number of sides and looking at how numbers change as the polygon gets closer and closer to being a circle? If you were to do this, you would produce a series of numbers which tend towards pi with a value of 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884...
I wrote a simple little program to calculate pi, and you can run it here:- http://www.magicschoolbook.com/maths/3.html#pie (http://www.magicschoolbook.com/maths/3.html#pie)
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/09/2017 20:03:46
He thinks that the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter varies with the size of the circle.I guessed that, but as a forum that is here to explain things, I think it is up to us as members to explain. He is not ignoring it, he just does not understand which is a difference. Relative to him because of his mindset, he is correct and is ''seeing'' something we are missing. If he discusses this with me I will hopefully change his mindset and help him to see his own error.It is not silly, try being a bit calmer and explaining better rather than ''barking'' at the poster. Perhaps this person just needs to discuss things for their own mind. I will discuss it with them .From the mechanical industry, every steel cylinder produced in the lathe is almost perfectVery few things are as nearly perfectly round as the sphere of silicon they made for determining the mass of the kilogram.
That experiment verified that pi is the same for spheres the size of atoms as it is for the whole sphere they made- about 10cm in diameter to within the limits of their measurement- which was about 20 parts per billion.
You already know that the experiment shows that you are wrong.
I have also pointed out that the shadow of a circle (cast by a small light source onto a flat surface) is also a circle and simple geometry shows that the ratios of the diameter to the circumference of the circle must be the same for the ring as for the shadow.
So pi must be the same for the ring and the shadow.
So you know you are wrong.
Why keep trying to spread this silly lie?
Are you aware that this isn't the first time he has been told the truth and that he just keeps ignoring it?
However until I understand his idea, I withhold judgement. There is a chance he could be correct, but without understanding exactly his notion to his mindset, I could never be sure.
Can you explain his notion to me?
He is wrong, both because the experiments show him to be wrong (that's hardly a difficult concept to grasp) and because, if it was true, shadows of circles wouldn't be circles (that's only a slightly more complex concept).
His error has been pointed out.
Instead of seeking clarification, he just starts another thread making the same impossible claims.
You say " If he discusses this with me I will hopefully change his mindset and help him to see his own error. "
OK, this could be good; I will get popcorn + watch.
Post by: CPT ArkAngel on 10/09/2017 20:30:44
In mathematics, infinity definitely exists. Infinity is a part of mathematics. Thus, there is no problem with maths. For physics, it is another matter and it is an unanswered question. Is infinities a part of reality? Maybe... or maybe not...
Post by: aetzbar on 10/09/2017 20:57:47
Mathematics does not know how to make calculations on round lines.
What are they doing ? , They exchange a round line in many small segments of a straight line.
Therefore, mathematicians will never discover the idea of variable pie. (3.1416 to 3.164)
Physicists know how to measure real circles (cylinders), and the dramatic discovery belongs to them.
The world of science expects an experiment that will determine that pie changes.
Post by: aetzbar on 10/09/2017 21:10:55
The variable pi theme will go into history.
It will also turn out that mathematics is not even capable of handling circuits.
Physics will discover a new geometry, which has been hidden for thousands of years.
New geometry will produce unknown innovations.
thank you for your interest,
Post by: guest39538 on 10/09/2017 22:42:34
To all distinguished participants.Ok,
The variable pi theme will go into history.
It will also turn out that mathematics is not even capable of handling circuits.
Physics will discover a new geometry, which has been hidden for thousands of years.
New geometry will produce unknown innovations.
thank you for your interest,
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Tell me what is wrong in this diagram?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/09/2017 02:03:40
The maths is simple :
(pi*d)+D=c where D is the diameter of the circles line.
Is this what you are saying or something else?
It depends whether or not you measure the inner or outer edge of the circles line?
added- on second thought it would be the diameter that was a variate which is for two different circles, an inner and outer.
Post by: Colin2B on 11/09/2017 14:51:45
(pi*d)+D=c where D is the diameter of the circles line.
Is this what you are saying or something else?
It depends whether or not you measure the inner or outer edge of the circles line?
added- on second thought it would be the diameter that was a variate which is for two different circles, an inner and outer.
Excellent logic, yes the diameter is the variable.
Maths is almost right, I can see what you are trying to show. Brackets are in wrong place.
Post by: aetzbar on 11/09/2017 15:04:38
How the mathematicians agreed ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi
Post by: guest39538 on 11/09/2017 16:07:18
(pi*d)+D=cThen it must be
inner circle pi * d = C
outer circle pi * (d+D)=C
Post by: guest39538 on 11/09/2017 16:10:46
Even in wikipedia ,there is no proof that pi is a fixed number.What this is saying is not what you think it is saying.
How the mathematicians agreed ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi
Quote
It is approximately equal to 3.14159
After the 9 at the end there is lots more numbers, so that is why they say it is approximately equal. That is all that means.
Quote
its decimal representation never ends and never settles into a permanent repeating pattern).
What you have to realise is you are trying to tell science they are wrong but then in what you think you are telling them is wrong, is the exact same thing as they already know but in different terms. What I mean by this , science knows pi is not a fixed number (see the quote) but science also know it is a mathematical constant of approximately to a fractionally zero closeness result.
Understand that any alteration to Pi is not needed in science to repeat this accuracy in experiment over and over again.
Even if there was some minor discrepancy in Pi, it wouldn't make any difference to the measurement and would be negligible. It simply is an idea that is not needed or would improve the accuracy of Pi.
Post by: aetzbar on 11/09/2017 17:40:58
For this geometry, the world of science has been waiting for 2,000 years.
This geometry connects us to physical reality.
This geometry has a new fixed number and is 1.007
This fixed number will also appear in the physical field.
Pi's tiny change conceals a huge revolution.
Post by: Colin2B on 11/09/2017 18:26:08
Then it must beI'm impressed
inner circle pi * d = C
outer circle pi * (d+D)=C
where D is the diameter of the circles line.
I understand what you mean but it would be better to describe D as the thickness of the line. Then your formula works. If you describe it as the diameter of the line it assumes measured from one side of circle to other and formula would be different eg. Inner diameter and outer diameter of line.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/09/2017 19:23:44
I would of thought that the thickness of the line would represent the depth of the line. Would it not be better to maybe say:Then it must beI'm impressed
inner circle pi * d = C
outer circle pi * (d+D)=Cwhere D is the diameter of the circles line.
I understand what you mean but it would be better to describe D as the thickness of the line. Then your formula works. If you describe it as the diameter of the line it assumes measured from one side of circle to other and formula would be different eg. Inner diameter and outer diameter of line.
Where d is the diameter of the inner circle and D is the diameter of the boundary line between inner and outer circle?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/09/2017 19:52:59
Even in wikipedia ,there is no proof that pi is a fixed number.That wiki page points to this one
How the mathematicians agreed ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz_formula_for_%CF%80
where it shows you how to calculate the value of pi.There's 1 formula, and 1 value.
So, as usual, you are plainly wrong.
Post by: aetzbar on 11/09/2017 20:10:39
I did not see a closed round line, and I did not see a diameter
I have not seen proof that a pi of a 1 mm round closed line,
Equal to the pi of a 100 mm round closed line
You will not find such proof in Wikipedia as well.
Was convenient for mathematicians to determine .... Pi is a fixed number
So they just determined ... Pi is a fixed number
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/09/2017 22:14:44
So they just determined ... Pi is a fixed number...because it is a fixed number.
Do you understand that you have offered no evidence at all that you are right, nor have you shown that any of the points made against your idea is wrong?
Post by: aetzbar on 11/09/2017 22:37:16
It is impossible to explain in words that the idea is correct.
It is impossible to explain in writing numbers that the idea is correct.
(Writing numbers - mathematical proof)
There is only one way to explain, and it is of real measurement.
The measurement will prove that there is inequality.
The diameters ratio of two circuits > from circumference ratio of the circles.
Post by: Colin2B on 12/09/2017 09:59:44
[I'm impressed
I would of thought that the thickness of the line would represent the depth of the line. Would it not be better to maybe say:
Where d is the diameter of the inner circle and D is the diameter of the boundary line between inner and outer circle?
Ok, bear with me here because we are using different terminology.
To me a diameter is the measure from one side of a circle to the other across the centre, whereas the measure of the thickness of the boundary line would not cross the centre so I wouldn't call it a diameter.
Draw 2 circles with same centre - you're good at drawing - call diameter of inner circle d1 and outer d2. Then d2-d1=half the distance between the edges of circles i.e. the thickness of the distances between their circumferences.
Post by: guest39538 on 12/09/2017 12:14:16
d2 - d1 would not equal half the distance between circles.[I'm impressed
I would of thought that the thickness of the line would represent the depth of the line. Would it not be better to maybe say:
Where d is the diameter of the inner circle and D is the diameter of the boundary line between inner and outer circle?
Ok, bear with me here because we are using different terminology.
To me a diameter is the measure from one side of a circle to the other across the centre, whereas the measure of the thickness of the boundary line would not cross the centre so I wouldn't call it a diameter.
Draw 2 circles with same centre - you're good at drawing - call diameter of inner circle d1 and outer d2. Then d2-d1=half the distance between the edges of circles i.e. the thickness of the distances between their circumferences.
It would have to be:
+d1=halfway of the thickness between circles?
d12.jpg (24.79 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 2698 times)Post by: evan_au on 12/09/2017 12:36:51
Quote from: aetzbar
I have not seen proof that a pi of a 1 mm round closed line,I just found it in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approximations_of_%CF%80#Polygon_approximation_to_a_circle
Equal to the pi of a 100 mm round closed line
You will not find such proof in Wikipedia as well.
Archimedes (an ancient Greek mathematician) calculated the value of π for a "unit circle", where the radius = 1 unit, and the circumference is between 6.28169 and 6.28572 units.
You can set the units to be 1mm.
- You can can equally set the units to be 1km.
- Or even 1 unit = 1 decimeter (1dm = 100mm - even though this is not an "official" metric unit)
The proof works just as well in all cases, and calculates the same range of values for π.
Spoiler Alert: 3.16 is not in the possible range.
Post by: Colin2B on 12/09/2017 16:36:49
d2 - d1 would not equal half the distance between circles.
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. The distance between the circles - the blue line in your diagram - is
It would have to be:
Yes, that is also correct. It is the diameter of a circle whose circumference is exactly halfway between the inner and outer circles.
Now I'm doubly impressed. Not only are you using math to correctly describe your ideas, but you are also thinking real maths and making useful conclusions.
Post by: guest39538 on 12/09/2017 19:46:31
I always think real maths lol although sometimes I may not present it correctly . I will get there in time. :Dd2 - d1 would not equal half the distance between circles.
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. The distance between the circles - the blue line in your diagram - is
It would have to be:
Yes, that is also correct. It is the diameter of a circle whose circumference is exactly halfway between the inner and outer circles.
Now I'm doubly impressed. Not only are you using math to correctly describe your ideas, but you are also thinking real maths and making useful conclusions.