Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 15:05:19 UTC No. 16202576

>>16202562
just use base pi :^)

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 15:09:58 UTC No. 16202583

>>16202562
> Every circle you've ever seen isn't actually a circle because of material imperfections in the boundary causing differences in radius at some level.

Only the truly low IQ can tolerate this.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 15:24:43 UTC No. 16202601

>>16202562
Y'all pointing out that the eyes of a beautiful girl may turn out not to be perfectly symmetrical when measured in detail. Your autism is ruining the beauty of life. Feynman was wrong and the artist was right,.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 15:27:10 UTC No. 16202608

>>16202583
circles are imaginary, like all 2 dimensional shapes. the best representation of one you can make in 3d space is essentially a very thin cylinder or torus technically, and never perfect.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 15:29:59 UTC No. 16202614

>>16202562
Isn't accuracy a physics problem rather than a math one?

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 15:39:31 UTC No. 16202629

>>16202601
Don't you dare excuse numerical slop by equating it to a beautiful woman. A beautiful woman is finite, and that's why we value her. Her beauty won't last, and neither will our ability to find solace in it.

Pi on the other hand is like a cockroach. It scurries all over the disciplines, insisting its ugly form on everything by virtue of of it being a "natural truth". It exists into infinity purely because we let it. Our finite circles remain inaccurate because we force them to live in a mathematical swamp. Edwin Goodwin was a hero.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 15:45:05 UTC No. 16202640

>>16202562
Do we know the value of 1 any better than the value of pi? Sure it feels like you can have one object in the way you can't have pi of them but we're not talking about arithmetics. The confusion is largely down to thinking that geometry is arithmetics when it isn't. You can't arithmetically prove a shit ton of things that pertain to geometry.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 15:46:34 UTC No. 16202642

>>16202640
1 x radius = radius

1 x pi = ??????

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 15:56:46 UTC No. 16202654

>>16202562
>iq mentioned in post
IGNORED. Any post talking about iq shows that the poster is underage or a loser who has the mind of a child. inb4 low iq

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 15:57:51 UTC No. 16202655

>>16202562
Close enough for government work.
t. works for the government

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 16:02:32 UTC No. 16202658

>>16202629
You made my day anon. Well played.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 16:19:04 UTC No. 16202672

>>16202642
>1 x radius = radius
Does this make sense to you? Is radius a thing you can hold in your hands, which you can count? If you have 2 x radius, do you have two different radii?

Or are we applying the algebraic operation of multiplication, used in elementary arithmetics, to the notion of proportionality in geometry? Where 1 x radius = radius, because a radius such that every segment of it is equal in length to every segment of another radius amounts to the other radius being identical to the first radius? If if I say 2 x radius, then that radius is double the size of the first radius, but we don't have two different radii of the same size.

Ergo pi is to 1, as the circumference of a circle is to its diameter. And that's all there is to know about pi.

Boo-ker at Fri, 31 May 2024 16:37:34 UTC No. 16202689

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 16:41:27 UTC No. 16202695

>>16202654
what an incredible reaction. did the op offend you?

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 16:45:37 UTC No. 16202698

>>16202640
i'm sure there's some reality where the words you used have wildly different definitions so that this forms a coherent thought, but you should know that it's not this one.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 17:05:41 UTC No. 16202720

>>16202698
>i'm sure there's some reality where the words you used have wildly different definitions so that this forms a coherent thought, but you should know that it's not this one.
Well, then. I would like to buy a bag of standardized unit lengths, please. Makes sense? It's not that hard to see how the operation of adding things is not the same as "counting" things.

All other things being equal, you're a mathlet.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 18:44:22 UTC No. 16202823

>>16202562
>circle
doesnt exist

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 18:48:19 UTC No. 16202830

>>16202654
Why does merely mentioning IQ already make midwits piss and shit their pants?

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 18:56:28 UTC No. 16202842

>>16202614
Maybe we should just dispense with Nath since we already know everything. We need more physicists not mathematicians.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 18:59:22 UTC No. 16202846

every measurement you ever take is inaccurate, this is why a margin of error is included.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 19:09:01 UTC No. 16202861

>>16202842
Well i want to just do math instead, physics is already fucked by theoretical faggots inventing parallel universes. At least math doesn't pretend, it's just a language to describe abstract shit.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 19:10:37 UTC No. 16202862

>>16202562
Every example of PI you have ever seen used is rational.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 19:11:16 UTC No. 16202864

>>16202861
Better yet, let's just admit that we got the limit of what is possible to know in the Universe and just all do some engineering to make life better for everyone instead of chasing after diminishing returns.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 19:19:21 UTC No. 16202869

>>16202864
that's right

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 21:11:33 UTC No. 16203007

>>16202601
>Y'all
Stopped reading right there.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 23:08:20 UTC No. 16203183

>>16202846
>draw square of 1x1
>calculate area
>1m^2

>draw circle with radius of 1
>calculate circumference
>inaccurate magic number schizo babble

I am noting that many people are saying that this discrepancy is fine because "circles aren't real" or that "measurement is inherently innacurate". Perfect squares don't really exist either, yet they can be calculated exactly - sometimes even in spite of using schizo numbers like √2

Cirumferlets have been using "muh natural ratio from god" for so long that they have forgotten it is outright incorrect. They then force this disgusting fictionalism and its poor accuracy upon the innocent circle. When the nature of truth begs for a realistic answer, the self-assured archimedian says "trust me bro, it's an intrinsic property. Besides, circles aren't real anyway." I refuse to be geometrically gaslight.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 23:30:13 UTC No. 16203213

>>16203183
okay, now draw a line between two opposite corners of your 1x1 square. what is the length of that line?

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 23:43:36 UTC No. 16203230

>>16203213

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 00:19:56 UTC No. 16203272

>>16203213
>you cannot simply have a triangle where sides A and B are both equal and integers, without ending up with a hypotenuse that devolves into the equivalent of numerical tongues

Don't even get me started on pythagoids. Yet another instance of inaccurate slop being grandfathered in by virtue of practicality. You have a line along an X axis from 0 to 1 and it's clear what is going on. You tilt it a little bit and suddenly "we'll never know the length and we don't have enough information". True mental illness.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 00:23:51 UTC No. 16203280

>>16203272
okay so what's the length

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 00:34:20 UTC No. 16203301

>>16203280
Not a^2 + b^2 = c^2

"Should the boy who cried wolf be believed because his skeptics couldn't produce a cow?"

-Me, 2024

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 00:39:05 UTC No. 16203312

>>16203301
i didn't ask you what it's not, i asked you what it is.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 01:03:27 UTC No. 16203343

>>16203312
You tell me

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 01:26:31 UTC No. 16203373

You god damn retards can't into geometry

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 13:52:29 UTC No. 16204168

>>16203183
and what did you measure that 1x1 square with? A standard ruler? A micrometre? Either way, it's only accurate to either +/- 0.5mm or 0.005mm. Maybe you even used an electron microscope, there is still error.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 14:19:33 UTC No. 16204235

>>16203213
1