It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Mathematician required!

page: 1
1
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 03:22 PM
I labeled my thread unwisely (the one in my signature about pi) and I need verification or disproof for it from mathematician. Proof means that the calculations and claims are correct. If they are not, I need formula that disproves me.

I am not trying to advertize the thread against the rules, but it seems valid mathematicians are not interested of it - or there isn't any around ATS

The thread I am referring to
edit on 10-12-2011 by JackTheTripper because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 03:32 PM

Sounds a bit like a challenge...I'll bite...throw your best equation (or theory) and let us plug it in!
edit on 10-12-2011 by jerryznv because: ...

Nevermind...this is more 3.144 and 3.141...not worth wasting time on...sorry for the interuption...carry on!
edit on 10-12-2011 by jerryznv because: ...

posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 03:37 PM
Isn't π simply circumference divided by diameter?

posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 03:40 PM

Yes, but current methods of finding Pi using "successive approximation" of a curve into lines fall short. Pi cannot be solved via successive approximation and will always come up as short (which is why current methods show it is 3.141) - this is because of the fractal nature of space and that a curve in space can actually be subdivided infinitely. So no matter how many times you divide a curve into a straight line and do another successive approximation - there will still be a portion of the curve, or another crevice inside of the curve - that you still have not gotten. Thus all previous methods at calculating pi from successive approximation of curves into lines fall short because they are missing small crevices in the curve.

posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 04:05 PM
Pi (3.14159265...) can only be rational if you make 2 circles one inside the other put 2 on both sides of the inside one which is truthfully the same as the outer circle their both 0s right
The inside one just has a circle +1 and a -1 or -1, +1 or circle ( A ) and ( B ) the center one we will call ( O ) and the outer ( o ) So ( O ) = (o) but ( A ) and ( B ) do not equal ( o )
but each one A or B does equal ( O ) the center circle But ( A ) and ( B ) are polarities to the other

You see Infinity is both within and without the ( O ) center circle and ( o ) outer circle making them 2 the same But one different the ones ( A ) and ( B ) are only different from ether ones + or - perspective if you use all the 3 inside circles radius ( A ) ( O ) ( B ) and across the big circle ( o ) and rap the central ( O ) with that you get 9.1428571428571428571428571428571... much more rational

And the Inverse to which is

www.abovetopsecret.com...

we view the forward progression of time like in terms of our life, the lives of other living things because even planet and stars are living things that we measure the universe by and wonder why it all doesn't seem to fit together just like we cant seem to find the end of Pi

But all living things are fated to die eventually thus living is dieing and dieing is living right so our belief in understanding time as having a forward motion is relative to the world that we live and see before us.

This leads me to believe that time is in fact moving backwards which is why all living things whether plant, animal, planets or the stars fight against force of death/gravity to exist
which makes sense since seeing only matter not dark matter or whatever is made of living things you cant really see dead things to well

"Suddenly you’re awake. But where are you? Everywhere you look there’s white. White walls hug and confine you, stretching deeper and deeper, marking the boundaries of a straight, narrow, featureless hallway. You’re bewildered, but who wouldn’t be? Finally you stand and look behind you. All white, everything, going back to where it vanishes. You push against the hard white floor, swaying and almost losing your balance because you’ve been asleep so long. Looking ahead, you realize the hallway is not exactly like it was behind you. Almost the same, but not quite. Way, way in the distance you can see some specks. And, reasoning that specks are better than nothing, you begin walking toward them. It takes a long time, but then the specks grow and define themselves. They have become signs, gold in color and arrow-shaped. They hang at the end of the hallway, and you can see lettering on them. Closer and closer you walk, until you can see that there’s a second hallway perpendicular to this one. One arrow points left and reads: “Casino.” The other points right and reads: “Life.” Choose Life.-- "America's Mad Genius" Mike Caro

Now think about the inverse of this white hallway its just a black one right all in all the same but both as one to the other are different. This is vital to fully understand anything One seeks to

en.wikipedia.org...

7) Laws of Universe,
&)Law of Gender
“Gender is in everything; everything has its Masculine and Feminine Principles; Gender manifests on all planes.”

^)Law of Cause and Effect
“Every Cause has its Effect; every Effect has its Cause; everything happens according to Law; Chance is but a name for Law not recognized; there are many planes of causation, but nothing escapes the Law.”

%)Law of Rhythm
“Everything flows, out and in; everything has its tides; all things rise and fall; the pendulum-swing manifests in everything; the measure of the swing to the right is the measure of the swing to the left; rhythm compensates.”

\$)Law of Polarity
“Everything is Dual; everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled.”

#)Law of Vibration
“Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates.”

@)Law of Correspondence
“As above, so below; as below, so above.”

!)Law of Mentalism
“THE ALL is MIND; The Universe is Mental.

posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 04:20 PM

I am not saying that algebrally the use of "pi" is wrong, but that the arithmetic value is wrong as it is based on successive approximation of a curve into lines which fall short. What I have provided is closed form formula for calculating the arithmetic value (A closed-form-derivation of Pi by breaking a square into 16 parts that Phi can be expressed in terms of a circle's area and circumference).

Anyway, please check out the PDF
edit on 10-12-2011 by JackTheTripper because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 09:51 PM
One tip I have come across when dealing with mathematical issues of infinity is to introduce another infinity into the equation to cancel it out so you are left with the variables you are interested in a meaningful and workable way. IblisLucifer does look like he is using this approach by using other circles and their infinity to get a solution. Currently I am not in the right head space to confirm or deny any solutions regarding pi.

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 01:18 AM
Pi is irrational and it's approximation is correct because it follows from its definition.

1/(1 - x) = 1 + x + x^2...

1/(1 + x^2) = 1 - x^2 + x^4 - ...

arctan x = x - x^3/3 + x^5/5 - ...

From definition we know that arctan 1 = pi/4

pi = 4(1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - ...)

Each term of pi gets smaller and smaller. That means each term's precision gets smaller and smaller. Mathematicians have calculated up to million digits I think. The decreasing precision of terms implies it's approximation to a certain precision is correct.
edit on 11-12-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 06:06 AM

Can you then tell me where do I go wrong with the pdf? Why the maths do tell that the value is indeed 3.144...?

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 08:26 AM
Please put in more information. Where exactly are you getting phi from and explain how that is related to the circle.

Pi can be defined as the area of a unit circle. Pi is not necessarily approximated from arc length. By definition we relate angles to certain triangular ratios and they are related to a unit circle. So the infinite sum of pi is a valid method as any. The sum is really an infinite series for arctan. We are not cutting circles to measure pi. artan(1) = pi/4 by definition. There are other methods to approximate pi.
edit on 11-12-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 08:53 AM
After going through all the sources in the paper, is the assumption that the smaller circle has a unit diameter length valid? Doesn't look like that to me. It would be better if you chose either the big circle or the small circle to be unit length, and express the areas or lengths in terms of each other.
edit on 11-12-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 08:57 AM

Originally posted by 547000
Please put in more information. Where exactly are you getting phi from and explain how that is related to the circle.

Pi can be defined as the area of a unit circle. Pi is not necessarily approximated from arc length. By definition we relate angles to certain triangular ratios and they are related to a unit circle. So the infinite sum of pi is a valid method as any. The sum is really an infinite series for arctan. We are not cutting circles to measure pi. artan(1) = pi/4 by definition. There are other methods to approximate pi.

The phi part is self-evident if you look the lower image with the appropriate angles and distances/ratios.
artan(1) = pi/4. I am not implying the algebra is wrong. the arithmetic value is.

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 09:05 AM
Yes, but if you take increasing and increasing approximations of the area of a circle with unit length you will get values reaching the standard definition. Definitions are important. The arithmetic is not wrong. You can calculate this for yourself.
edit on 11-12-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 09:13 AM

Successive approximation of a curve into lines will fall short. If the first approximation is too short, so will be the consequent ones, hence the arithmetical value compared to circle's circumference to its diameter will fall short.
Here is the imaginary experiment: www.abovetopsecret.com...

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 09:20 AM
Then try an experiment where you will start with figures that are bigger than circles and slowly approach the area of a circle of until length. Until you explain your argument properly no one will be able to understand what you are saying. I'm not so good with geometry so you might want to consult a reference which does both from below and above. Check out Introduction to Calculus and Analysis by Fritz John and Richard Courant.

If you agree that tan(pi/4) = 1 then any method of calculating pi using this definition is valid.
edit on 11-12-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 09:50 AM

What I am saying is that the value of tan (as well as sin and cos) is also off. Not much to make a difference, but still.

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 10:02 AM
But have you considered what I have said about approximation from above as well as below? You have a problem with from below but from above shows the same thing.

If the definition of tan is correct, any calculation of pi based on this definition is correct too. The equation of tan(pi/4) = 1 DOES NOT tell us what pi is, just how it is related to pi. But if this relation IS correct the infinity series is correct too. What is your definition of sin, cosine, and tangent?
edit on 11-12-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 10:12 AM

The identities of trigonometric functions (tan, sin, cos) are correct - but they rely heavily on the pi. The pi, as algebraic symbol is also correct, but the arithmetic value is off because it's approximated. Hence the values for the trigonometric functions are also off if the pi is used arithmetically.

Use the value 4/sqrt(phi) to define new value for arctan and you get my point - this goes hermetically as you suggested.

This is the arithmetic value what I suggest to be arctan(1) = Sqrt[2/(1 + Sqrt[5])] = 0.7861513777574232860695585858429589295231220578377232376649 ...

I am serioulsy doubting my sanity here.
edit on 11-12-2011 by JackTheTripper because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 09:20 AM

I take everything back - I have come to conclusion here.
As there is no straight line in nature, the lenght of the circles diameter - when (maginarily) drawn will vary and thus approximate using the golden rule to the perfect straight line. When the (imaginary) line is measured by following exactly the line, it is slightly longer than the exact approximation of pi value (3.141...). In a sense the value 3.144 does meet the description of "circle's circumference to its diameter".

From this conclusion a postulate arises: As phi is constantly found in the nature, it may be that the closest approximation of perfect circle the nature can produce could be expressed using the formula 4/sqrt(phi).

Please, forget all the nonsense and clearly insane babbling at the previous posts

edit on 12-12-2011 by JackTheTripper because: (no reason given)

top topics

1