Pi: Pythagoras be Tripping

reply to post by LilDudeissocool

This is about freaking pi not rocket science. It does not require anything complicated.

You think so, do you? And yet you have managed to misunderstand the concept of bases, get numerical notation and numerical value all confused, and are busily engaged in trying to prove the impossible.

Perhaps it is a little more complicated than you think.

reply to post by Astyanax


> Pi is a ratio nothing less or more.

> Any ratio can be expressed as a numerical value.

> All numerical values such as 3.14159 bla bla bla are expressed within the 10 digit number system we use.

> Pi expressed as not being a whole number within our 10 digit number system is merely a coincidence, meaning, there are number systems that can be constructed where the pi ratio would land on a whole number. The number of number systems that can be created are infinite.

> The argument here is moot.

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
> Pi expressed as not being a whole number within our 10 digit number system is merely a coincidence, meaning, there are number systems that can be constructed where the pi ratio would land on a whole number.

I'd like to see that number system. You got a link to it?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


A link? No, you have to do this one from scratch. It's a process.

I explained how to do begin the process already, but here it is again.

The constant ratio between the circumference and its diameter of a circle expressed as a value is 3.14159265358979324. It's a value assigned to pi within a 10 digit number system. Take 3.14159265358979324 over a whole within our ten digit number system. Remember our number system is merely our chosen number system among an infinite possibilities. This takes thinking out side the box here, or our ten digit number system rather. The pi ratio can be expressed as a whole number in an entire number system constructed around the ratio, a constant. Because it's a constant makes what I am illuminating possible. This is how you begin the process to do so. (π ^ π2) 2 = 6506465676 a whole number. Divide that by π and you get another whole number 2071072349 or approximated at the value of 2072122827 using 3.14. If you take 2071072349 and divide it by 6506465676 you get .318309886 divide that by 100, a whole, and you get π of course, coming back full circle after adjusting the decimal place swinging it back to the left two places. Because that's all we are doing here finding a number system that fits π into a whole number, meaning, assigning it a whole number value. What I just illuminated proves a whole number from pi can be located within an alternate number system where 3.14159265358979324 happens to fall in a whole number placement value. It means it's fact that you can construct an entire number system around an alternate representation for 3.14159265358979324 within an alternate number system where pi is a whole number. It's simply a numerical representation for a ratio. 22/7 can be a whole number.

It can be easily illustrate how to do this. Lets say you have 3 pizzas divided up into 7 slices with one other slice leftover from a forth. The same volume can be incorporated into just three pizzas if you increase the area of the three pizzas in making new pizzas with a greater area that incorporates the area of the left over slice into each new pizza by .33333333-. That's the same as creating a new number system where 22/7 becomes 21/7 allowing pi to be expressed as a whole number.

Because of this flexibility in expressing pi the debate about pi here on this thread is therefor moot.

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

The constant ratio between the circumference and its diameter of a circle expressed as a value is 3.14159265358979324.

That's an approximation of pi. I can see how you can do something with an approximation...but I guess you can't really come up with a numbering system that will make pi a whole number as you claimed, and by pi I mean not an approximation of it.

Who knows if we had 3.14 fingers instead of 10 we might be using base 3.14? (that's a joke)

reply to post by Arbitrageur


> Oh, so pi is an abstract huh?

> 3.14 numbering system? At least you are comprehending my point.

If you find what the same value would be within a numbering system where it is expressed as a whole number you would render this conversation moot. Because one can find a whole number in conducting such a search renders this conversation moot. I win.

reply to post by LilDudeissocool

Okay, LilDude. You're just repeating yourself now.

> Pi is a ratio nothing less or more.

Correct.

> Any ratio can be expressed as a numerical value.

Wrong.

> All numerical values such as 3.14159 bla bla bla are expressed within the 10 digit number system we use.

Wrong.

> Pi expressed as not being a whole number within our 10 digit number system is merely a coincidence, meaning, there are number systems that can be constructed where the pi ratio would land on a whole number.

Wrong.

The number of number systems that can be created are infinite.

Correct, but none of them can have irrational bases.

> 3.14 numbering system? At least you are comprehending my point.

We comprehended it long ago, but it is wrong.

This is my favorite.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

> All numerical values such as 3.14159 bla bla bla are expressed within the 10 digit number system we use.

Wrong.

Let me try one more time.

If I turn a wheel along the ground it turns the distance of the diameter 3 times and roughly one 7th regardless. That makes it a constant. However this is not the issue.

That seventh is pi. 7/7 a diameter which is 7 * π. = 21.99114858 bla bla bla which in its own right is a whole number, the numerical value of a diameter. The circumference of a circle can be a whole number also. You can repeat the pi numerical representation as a whole, or absorb the one seventh into the three wholes counting a diameter as a whole by dividing the seventh into the other three by 33.3% then creating a number system around the result. Either option can be done. This means either representation can become a whole number within any chosen number system where either becomes represented as a whole number rendering this discussion moot, my point. The ratio between a straight line and a curved line within the same dimensional plane is another separate discussion entirely contained within in geometric terms devoid of numerical values assigned to anything, again, my point.

Gear ratios for example are always represented over a whole number the larger sprocket, a numerical representation of a ratio. The smaller being the same as diameter in this analogy and is the numerical representation as a single value.

You are arguing a moot subject, can't you realize this? You are arguing numbers not geometry.

reply to post by LilDudeissocool

That seventh is pi.

No, it isn't. π isn't really 22/7. That is a rational approximation of π, not the actual value of it.

7/7 a diameter which is 7 * π. = 21.99114858 bla bla bla which in its own right is a whole number, the numerical value of a diameter.

That calculation is wrong (wrong divisor, no term for diameter and if π really was 22/7 then 7 times π would be 22) but that is not really the point.

The point is that seven times π is also an irrational number. All rational multiples of π are irrational numbers.

The circumference of a circle can be a whole number also.

Yes, if you choose your units right. But those units will then give you an irrational result for the diameter of the circle.

You are arguing a moot subject, can't you realize this? You are arguing numbers not geometry.

No, little dude, that's not right. You're the one with the funny theory based on faulty mathematics, not I. You think multiplying an irrational number by a rational one gives a rational result.

π is also a transcendental number, which implies, among other things, that no finite sequence of algebraic operations on integers (powers, roots, sums, etc.) can render its value; proving this fact was a significant mathematical achievement of the 19th century. Source

End of argument from my side. You can carry on, if you like, but you're just wrong.

reply to post by Astyanax


> I can use "approximations" for what I am communicating. That's a clear sign you are trapped within a box of thinking. Those who are, are easily caught up in semantics.


> You are still confusing universal constants with numerical value placements.

Now I am going to have the last word.

The length of a diameter of any give circle is always 3 wholes and near one seventh of said length that equals a circumference which is pi. How that is represented within any given number system is only relative to that number system, and not rooted in the constant found only within the context of geometry.

Separate the two.

Math is a linguistic tool. A tool like a compass. Geometry on paper is like a map plotting the locations of all physical things as they relate to one another in physical form which is geometry, a physical truth. I mean how hard is that to understand unless the person is being deliberately argumentative? That's why have my money on the latter.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Who knows if we had 3.14 fingers instead of 10 we might be using base 3.14? (that's a joke)

Too bad, you almost had it. You do if you don't make a joke about it.

Look folks...as a person that works in Construction Engineering...I use Pi all the time...it is a function of geometry and trigonometry and it is a number we use to figure things out.

Example:

I am building a stadium...I want a curved roof system...now the only way to calculate the length of the steel that is going to be force curved and made into the pieces that make up the roof involves functions of Pi...it works...it always works....dispute all you like, but this is 27 years of practical application here...sorry if that is upsetting...

Instead of questioning things that are not broken...aka...mathematical functions...why not step over into the political forum and ask why are we not fixing our roads and bridges?

reply to post by Damrod


Because the Wall Street billionaire crowd wants to let them all fall apart so it then can be argued that it's too expensive for the government to fix and they can't do anything right, so these public properties will then be privatized with the full will of the people to do so. Just as they are doing with the U.S. Postal Service.

Money talks and BS walks. It's a lost cause subject to discuss.

LilDudeissocool,

Are you familiar with Marko Rodin's vortex math? I hope so, because I would appreciate your thoughts on the following claim, as stated in "RodinAerodynamics.org featuring the Rodin Coil":

The repeating number pattern that solves pi and demonstrates it to be a whole number.

Uh huh.

Related to the numbers in between.