If r=1, what are you trying to say, that 360=3.14159? That 2.5=3.14159 too?

WTF??

Have you been following the whole discussion? Russ did not introduce those equations. He was commenting on the fact that they were meaningless..., in the context they had been introduced!

Step back and look at the discussion, unless your intent truely is to be trolling.

If r=1, what are you trying to say, that 360=3.14159? That 2.5=3.14159 too?

WTF??
Similar answer: you should start by completing the remedial pre-algebra course, then go on to algebra. By the end, you should understand that you cannot set r=1, but rather you must solve the equation to find r.

Have you been following the whole discussion? Russ did not introduce those equations. He was commenting on the fact that they were meaningless..., in the context they had been introduced!
Minor clarification: *I* created those equations, but for the reason you say: They are a commentary on/similar example to the meaningless equation John created.

The bizarre part is that by MD quoting the post, he had another opportunity to read it, so there should be no ambiguity here. MD seems to want to blast me for them being meaningless - but not only did he swing and miss on why they are meaningless, I know they are meaningless! I said so at the bottom of the post!

Minor clarification: *I* created those equations, but for the reason you say: They are a commentary on/similar example to the meaningless equation John created.

The bizarre part is that by MD quoting the post, he had another opportunity to read it, so there should be no ambiguity here. MD seems to want to blast me for them being meaningless - but not only did he swing and miss on why they are meaningless, I know they are meaningless! I said so at the bottom of the post!

I did not go back to actually check, so it was likely the underlying intent/context I confused. Perhaps I should take some of my own advice, on occassion?

Now the time has come to formally put this issue to rest since tan(3.125/4) is less than one then pi must be rational

And when tan(pi/4)= 1 does not describe a natural circle but it describes a polygon so this answer will always = 1 even if you calculate the ratio of a polygons perimeter to its diameter until infinity this is a polygonal equivalent to a circle it will never truly equal a curve that is why you have to calculate it to infinity but a true circle will equal less than one, thus the definition of a polygon does not satifisfy a correct description based on the definition of a circle so Archimedes method is fundamentally flawed from the beginning. Modern mathematics was able to erase the corners of the polygons with use of infinite series but that is cheating because they still never really measured a circle but only it's polygonal doppelgänger the square version of a circle "8/2.22". This is also why 1*1*1*1*1... = 1 until infinity so it's follows that if pi is described as the ratio of a polygons perimeter to its diameter then yes of course its irrational but the problem is not in the math it's in the definitions visions and comprehension of the concepts.

Last edited:
Similar answer: you should start by completing the remedial pre-algebra course, then go on to algebra. By the end, you should understand that you cannot set r=1, but rather you must solve the equation to find r.

You just plain don't know what you're talking about, Russ. Look at the pretty pic. Do you know what you're looking at? Maybe rpenner can help you.

Now the time has come to formally put this issue to rest since tan(3.125/4) is less than one then pi must be rational

What?

Now the time has come to formally put this issue to rest since tan(3.125/4) is less than one then pi must be rational
Nyet.

You just plain don't know what you're talking about, Russ. Look at the pretty pic. Do you know what you're looking at? Maybe rpenner can help you.

Lol.

Nope, it's no joke. Try again!!

"No more free lessons for you!"

Edit: Ooops, I forgot the credits to that - Tach. The quote, not the pic.

Last edited:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/help-needed.142484/ ( Discussion on construction of approximations to 1:√π including my discovery of 1 : ( √(3/10) + √(3/2) ) which is constructable )

The diagram in post #106 is a humbug

It was originally posted in the context of a geometric construction of the ratio 1:√π but is not a geometric construction of 1:√π . If it is a geometric construction, it is for a square of side of length in ratio with the radius of the circle of 1:√3.

The diagram in post #106 is a humbug and any claim that it is a construction of a square with sides of length √3.14 or √π is a fraud. This is easiest to see in a cleaned up and labelled diagram:

Here we see there is no connection between the trivially constructed length CD, with length in ratio AB:CD = 1:√3 and the red-bordered square WXYZ with sides in ratio AB:WX = 1:√π

This was Motor Daddy's burden to carry which he ignores.

Zooming in we see that the point C is exactly defined by the intersection of two arcs and is quite a bit separated from the red line.

Last edited:
What is the area of your circle?

Anyways am writing a paper on why 1*1*1....= 1 until infinity but it seems to relate to other major mathematical concepts ...

And when tan(pi/4)= 1 does not describe a natural circle but it describes a polygon so this answer will always = 1 even if you calculate the ratio of a polygons perimeter to its diameter until infinity this is a polygonal equivalent to a circle it will never truly equal a curve that is why you have to calculate it to infinity but a true circle will equal less than one, thus the definition of a polygon does not satifisfy a correct description based on the definition of a circle so Archimedes method is fundamentally flawed from the beginning. Modern mathematics was able to erase the corners of the polygons with use of infinite series but that is cheating because they still never really measured a circle but only it's polygonal doppelgänger the square version of a circle "8/2.22". This is also why 1*1*1*1*1... = 1 until infinity so it's follows that if pi is described as the ratio of a polygons perimeter to its diameter then yes of course its irrational but the problem is not in the math it's in the definitions visions and comprehension of the concepts.
There it is! It's about time you outed yourself! Now don't you feel better now that you finally got that big pile of crap off your chest?

Heck, rpenner, while you're here, maybe you can take a look at this:

x=1
y=0.999...
z=1-0.999...

x-y=z

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/help-needed.142484/ ( Discussion on construction of approximations to 1:√π including my discovery of 1 : ( √(3/10) + √(3/2) ) which is constructable )

The diagram in post #106 is a humbug

It was originally posted in the context of a geometric construction of the ratio 1:√π but is not a geometric construction of 1:√π . If it is a geometric construction, it is for a square of side of length in ratio with the radius of the circle of 1:√3.

The diagram in post #106 is a humbug and any claim that it is a construction of a square with sides of length √3.14 or √π is a fraud. This is easiest to see in a cleaned up and labelled diagram:

View attachment 101
Here we see there is no connection between the trivially constructed length CD, with length in ratio AB:CD = 1:√3 and the red-bordered square WXYZ with sides in ratio AB:WX = 1:√π

This was Motor Daddy's burden to carry which he ignores.
View attachment 102
Zooming in we see that the point C is exactly defined by the intersection of two arcs and is quite a bit separated from the red line.

Am familiar with this Gaddys pi 3.146264 , no comment but I do notice it follows in the polygonal category and tan(3.146264/4) should still equal 1 please someone calculate for me am too lazy am not sure if there is a rational pattern but it appears to be the addition of 2 infinite series so if they produce a rational number I find that interesting.

Last edited:
Heck, rpenner, while you're here, maybe you can take a look at this:

x=1
y=0.999...
z=1-0.999...

x-y=z
Lol. If at first you don't succeed at trolling...

Lol. If at first you don't succeed at trolling...

Did I make a mistake with my symbol letter thingies?

Heck, rpenner, while you're here, maybe you can take a look at this:

x=1
y=0.999...
z=1-0.999...

x-y=z