0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Is this a consequence of decimal counting? Is the hypotenuse always irrational for any counting base (binary, etc, etc)?

Quote from: Geezer on 03/04/2010 00:36:27Is this a consequence of decimal counting? Is the hypotenuse always irrational for any counting base (binary, etc, etc)?I suppose you could count things in square roots of 2. The hypotenuse would be 1 unit while the remaining sides would be 1/Sqrt[2] units. :p

Quote from: JP on 03/04/2010 03:07:47Quote from: Geezer on 03/04/2010 00:36:27Is this a consequence of decimal counting? Is the hypotenuse always irrational for any counting base (binary, etc, etc)?I suppose you could count things in square roots of 2. The hypotenuse would be 1 unit while the remaining sides would be 1/Sqrt[2] units. :pDoes that have anything to do with the invention of the radian?

Just wanted to add a little more food for thought...Imagine you wanted to draw this line with a ruler.Suppose you just happen to have a ruler where the measurement-bars are a millionth of an atom-width apart, this ruler would be far from accurate enough to depict √2 perfectly.I actually don't know what my point is other than the fact that I am baffled by how perfectlt this irrational length line is shown in a pythag triangle.

Hi thank you for your post. But one thing is not clear that what the author of this post wanted to mean ? And I have seen some people's comment also and I saw they are also not very clear about this.

In physics we call Quarks with daft names like Up, Down, Charm, Strange, Top and Bottom. The words don't really reflect position or a beguiling or weird attitude :-)