Area of a line.

Pi is irrational because it's not the ratio of any two integers.

You can't physically measure a line segment of length 1 either, for the same reason: all physical measurement is approximate. So by your logic, 1 is irrational. But it's not, since 1 = 1/1. So it's rational.

By the way can you please define "positronic?" Last time I heard that word was as a kid reading Isaac Asimov's robot stories about positronic brains.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You mean a singularity?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Isn't a point defined as a location in space? How would you falsify a definition?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Am using it like a metaphor since there is matter and antimatter and this universe seems to manipulate matter using electrons in comparison a connected space would use positrons to manipulate antimatter, just an inference this is highy speculative and just meant for objective discussion to reach a consensus.

You can technically say 1 is irrational (context dependent) becuase every number can be described by 1 ...Pi/pi = 1 pi although defined and rational specific desription of 1 is irrational.

 

"One" certainly is irrational.

Why is the

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

still posting in Physics & Math?

 

What is space?

 

You're the one who made a claim about points "existing" in space. What do YOU think space is?

 

So the physicist and mathematicians can logical deduce my assumptions and adress any logical fallacy's that could be deemed as trolling.

 

That's rubbish. The fact the ratio is an irrational number has nothing whatsoever to do with errors in measurement, due to the thickness of measured lines. It is purely mathematical fact. As this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi makes clear, you can get π ab initio, either from integral calculus or from the power series that make up trig functions, with no reference to geometric constructions.

 

Space is context specific I believe it's just another feature of the gravitational field. And everything known and unknown originates from the gravitational field all before and after sections of the gravitational is just an evolution of itself.

 

How in the hell are we suppose to discuss something like "this universe seems to manipulate matter using electrons".

I will try to discuss.

Tangent armadillos in a pillow fight often chide Falabella horses.
What do you think?

 

So back to square one: How would you falsify the definition of a point?

(MY point, in case you have missed it, is that you don't seem to know what you're talking about.)

 

Exactly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_(geometry)

 

But it's prime principals is still derived from the same origin. It's just adressing it from a different and more specific context.

 

The troll has fallen back to the "Prove me wrong!" stance in the face of an obviously false premise. It ignores 1,000 years of geometry, then vomits up some fetid goo about "positronium universes".

I ask again. Moderators: Please take out the trash.

 

I read it first as postironic, i.e. a rather pseud literary term.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If you change the context of course.

 

I agree. I think he should stick to hardware and give up the attempts at science.

 

Depends on how you define space, how do you define nothing or "0".

 

Yes, the origin being the relation between the arc traced by a vector being rotated and its projection onto an axis, or something equivalent.

But nothing to do with line thickness, which is what you claimed.