Pi Equals Four When Motion Is Involved

originally posted by: GetHyped
Has ConnectDots passed the Turing test yet?

I don't think so.

Also, it's very clear that the OP (Turin tested or not ) obviously doesn't understand what they're posting as they can't even comment on it past "oh wow. lol at this, it's cool."

It's quite sad that, even after it's been explained numerous times, the OP can't understand that it's still not pi.

a reply to: ConnectDots

He's doing it wrong, Mary.

It's tough to say why he decided to construct the triangles on the outside of the curve. But it's clear he didn't understand the proof. They're constructed on the inside. And it does converge when you do it correctly.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
Mathis has also posted a short version of his finding. Within the link, there is a link to a rebuttal to a critique of it. Also within the paper he has to make reference to another paper which preceded it, "A Disproof of Newton’s Fundamental Lemmae."

Here is the diagram at the beginning of the paper, and just the concluding paragraph:

. . . This means that the historical and current interpretation cannot be correct. The hypotenuses do not converge to the curve or the arc. No, as I show above, it is the tangent that converges upon the arc, but the convergence happens only when the tangent equals the radius. This convergence can happen only at 1/8th of the circle, and it happens just as I show in these papers. It happens because the arc is never a continuous curve, even at the limit. The arc is defined as a curve composed of linear or straight vectors, therefore it can never be continuous...
[snip]...But since the arc is not continuous even at the limit, the path truly does converge upon the arc, as we draw more steps. Since the distance doesn't change no matter how many steps we draw, the tangent must converge upon the arc. Or, at 1/8 of the circle, the tangent simply IS the arc.

milesmathis.com...

This work requires an open mind to revolutionary ideas, and the time to read.

This is NOT new and revolutionary, but actually a very old math exercise (a math "Paradox", if you will) -- but one that can be solved by the use of calculus.

The question here is this: "Is there such thing as a true arc? Because if we zoom in on the arc of a circle, we would see that it is made up of a series of straight line steps."

A similar question is this: "Is there such thing as a true diagonal line? Becuase if we zoom in on the diagonal, we would see that it is made up of a series of straight line steps."



That is to say that if a true diagonal line does not exist (and it is really a series of steps), then the measurement of the diagonal of a right triangle would be the same as the two sides added together. If that were true, then it would mean that if the example below was measuring the distance in KM between Points A, B, and C, then walking a diagonal between point A and point C would NOT be 10 km, as the Pythagorean Theorem tells us, but really it would be 14 km -- i.e., no shorter than if, to get from Point A to Point C, a person first walked from A to B, and then walked from B to C.



That's why a diagonal line between two points of a square or rectangle is said to be an irrational number. However, being an irrational number does not mean it is not a real number.

Miles Mathis is not the first person to ask this question. Students of Integral Calculus have used calculus for years to show how the steps on a diagonal -- or even the curve of a circle -- do NOT need to be strictly measures in a geometric or trigonometric manner as a as a series of steps, because calculus could turn the length of those steps into increments that are approaching the infinitely small, and thus showing that (1) walking the diagonal path is shorter, and (2) an arc is not equal to the tangent.

I know Mathis says [paraphrasing] "I'm not doing the calculus wrong, but everyone else in the past has done the calculus wrong"...but he is still doing the calculus wrong. Just by saying he isn't, that doesn't necessarily mean that he isn't.

By the way, the question about a diagonal line in a square being shorter than the distance between two sides of the square has been discussed on ATS before in the thread below:

ATS Thread -- Serious math question: Why is the diagonal in a rectangle shorter?

Pi is actually equal to 6. Here's my proof:

circle

c i r c l e

6 letters

Therefore, pi = 6.

Why not throw in Zeno's paradox. In going from point A to B, if half the distance is traveled, then half again, over and over, how is point B ever reached.

a reply to: GetHyped

If the ASCII code values are used for the letters, upper and lower case, in "circle" then

UC: 434, 4+3+4, 11, 1+1 = 2

LC: 626, 6+2+6., 14, 1+4 = 5

2/5 = .4

We use 10 unique symbols in base 10 numbers

.4 * 10 = 4

There it is...computers caused it.

originally posted by: GetHyped
Pi is actually equal to 6. Here's my proof:

circle

c i r c l e

6 letters

Therefore, pi = 6.

LIES! You don't know what you're talking about, peasant!

Pi is 8.

Proof: The Pizza I had on the weekend was round and circled and it had 8 perfectly sliced pieces which are triangles, so therefore I have successfully merged both of these theories into one and have proven that Pi is a circled triangle equal to 8.

Move along now, I'm going for my noble.

a reply to: MuonToGluon

What about the half a pie theory. You and friend each have half the pizza.

8 / 2 = 4. You both have 4 but together 8. This is why when people travel together, the trip seems to take less time.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: MuonToGluon

What about the half a pie theory. You and friend each have half the pizza.

8 / 2 = 4. You both have 4 but together 8. This is why when people travel together, the trip seems to take less time.

However if my friend and I were traveling together we would probably also be consuming a little alcohol or another substance and from previous experience we have left behind (don't ask why we left a piece behind...stuff happened and it was lost never to be found again) a piece of this rounded circled triangled pizza so that would mean that since 1 piece was left behind it would then equal to 3.

You and I will be receiving this noble prize together, however I will be taking credit for your math proof.

a reply to: MuonToGluon

You and I will be receiving this noble prize together, however I will be taking credit for your math proof.

I suppose that means I get the million dollar of the prize.

I'll split it with ya. Your supplied inspiration.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: MuonToGluon

You and I will be receiving this noble prize together, however I will be taking credit for your math proof.

I suppose that means I get the million dollar of the prize.

I'll split it with ya. Your supplied inspiration.

Deal, but I get the little nobel coin trophy thingie.

originally posted by: MuonToGluon

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: MuonToGluon

You and I will be receiving this noble prize together, however I will be taking credit for your math proof.

I suppose that means I get the million dollar of the prize.

I'll split it with ya. Your supplied inspiration.

Deal, but I get the little nobel coin trophy thingie.

Hold your horses on that one. We cut it into 8 pieces, just as the research that led to the prize.

I think we are done. Success feels so good.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: MuonToGluon

What about the half a pie theory. You and friend each have half the pizza.

According to some members of ATS, you just outed yourself as a predatory paedophile.

a reply to: FatherLukeDuke

And the theory that anyone reading this conspiracy, whether seeking truth or not, is also outed.

originally posted by: GetHyped
Pi is actually equal to 6. Here's my proof:

circle

c i r c l e

6 letters

Therefore, pi = 6.

I don't know where you growed up, but where I'm from ...

Pie are round -- sometimes cake are square, But, pie are round and you cut it two times to get four pieces.