Irrational Pi Defrocked

[Qfwfq]

How about an area equal to the square root of any prime number?

[Robust]

  Qfwfq said:

How about an area equal to the square root of any prime number?

Would you give me an example, please?

[Robust]

  C1ay said:

How about a radius equal to the square root of any prime number?

How 'bout it then? No need to be coy, man. What prime number might you have in mind?

[Qfwfq]

  Robust said:

Would you give me an example, please?

How about a radius equal to the fourth root of 999983, divided by the root of pi? This radius will be approximately 17,841165335769383731262028834274. The area wil be, obviously, the square root of 999983, approximately 999,99149996387469293423742211279.

[Robust]

  Qfwfq said:

How about a radius equal to the fourth root of 999983, divided by the root of pi? This radius will be approximately 17,841165335769383731262028834274. The area wil be, obviously, the square root of 999983, approximately 999,99149996387469293423742211279.

I have no idea what you just said, Qfwfg. There must be a more straightforward prime number.

[Kirk Gregory Czuhai]

  maddog said:

Conclusion: This says nothing about whether the state of PI being Irrational or Rational

or otherwise. Specifically, the constant PI is a trancendental number and is neither

Rational or Irrational. This would I think debunk your defrocking of PI.... :circle:

 

Maddog

Please Note:

ALL trancendental numbers ARE irrational but NOT ALL irrational numbers are trancendental.

 

if i recall correctly the trancendental numbers are not only irrational in that they cannot

be expressed as ratios of integers but also they are not roots of any polynomial.

 

Strange as it may seem or maybe not actually there are many, many, many more irrational numbers than rationals. the rationals are "countable" i.e. they can be put into one-to-one correspondence with the integers but the irrationals cannot!

 

Indeed, if you could visualize a number line and you were going to point randomly at one point on it the chances of coming up with a rational number instead of a irrational number are astronomically small.

 

love and peace,

and,

peace and love,

(kirk) kirk gregory czuhai LOVES !

:shrug:

[C1ay]

  Robust said:

How 'bout it then? No need to be coy, man. What prime number might you have in mind?

2^25964951-1

[Robust]

  Kirk Gregory Czuhai said:

Please Note:

ALL trancendental numbers ARE irrational but NOT ALL irrational numbers are trancendental.

 

if i recall correctly the trancendental numbers are not only irrational in that they cannot

be expressed as ratios of integers but also they are not roots of any polynomial.

 

Strange as it may seem or maybe not actually there are many, many, many more irrational numbers than rationals. the rationals are "countable" i.e. they can be put into one-to-one correspondence with the integers but the irrationals cannot!

 

Indeed, if you could visualize a number line and you were going to point randomly at one point on it the chances of coming up with a rational number instead of a irrational number are astronomically small.

 

love and peace,

and,

peace and love,

(kirk) kirk gregory czuhai LOVES !

:circle:

Kirk....The defrocking of the irrational pi has nothing to do with it being valid, but with the notion that it is sacrosanct. It is not....and I think more useless than contributory. It's nothing more than an elaborate alogrithm - and the least of workable pi values I could accept.

[C1ay]

  Robust said:

How 'bout it then? No need to be coy, man. What prime number might you have in mind?

Here's another interesting prime you might prefer:

 

31415926535897932384626433832795028841

 

or

 

314159 is prime as well.

[Robust]

  C1ay said:

Here's another interesting prime you might prefer:

 

31415926535897932384626433832795028841

 

or

 

314159 is prime as well.

Doesn't do anything for me, Clay. I prefer 3.16049382716....

[Rincewind]

  Robust said:

Doesn't do anything for me, Clay. I prefer 3.16049382716....

I never realised that 3.16049382716.... was a prime number. :circle:

[Robust]

  Robust said:

Doesn't do anything for me, Clay. I prefer 3.16049382716....

Let me just add this, Clay. I do appreciate your academic prowess. The academia is good and neccesary for the laying of ground rules, yet does not always give the best or final solution. The late and renowned Princeton astronomer Prof. Chas. A. Young remarked: "The problem is not with our powers of observation but with our mathematics." Now knowing precisely the minimum distance possible between each adjacent angular degree on circumference of the circular plane, we might hopefully look resolving that mathematics deficiency. I think the resolve is to be found in the given Base 10 anomaly (see that thread) in conjunction with the Pythagorean Perfect Ratios.

 

"All things number and harmony." - Pythagoras

[Rincewind]

  Robust said:

... Now knowing precisely the minimum distance possible between each adjacent angular degree on circumference of the circular plane...

But we don't know it because you have refused to say what units this smallest possible distance is measured in -- all you have provided is an unreferenced number, and that, as far as I can work out, is meaningless.

[C1ay]

  Robust said:

Let me just add this, Clay. I do appreciate your academic prowess. The academia is good and neccesary for the laying of ground rules, yet does not always give the best or final solution. The late and renowned Princeton astronomer Prof. Chas. A. Young remarked: "The problem is not with our powers of observation but with our mathematics." Now knowing precisely the minimum distance possible between each adjacent angular degree on circumference of the circular plane, we might hopefully look resolving that mathematics deficiency. I think the resolve is to be found in the given Base 10 anomaly (see that thread) in conjunction with the Pythagorean Perfect Ratios.

 

"All things number and harmony." - Pythagoras

You asked me to name a prime and I did. Now you attempt to turn the discussion elsewhere. Your claim that a closed continuum is obviously one you cannot support. When it comes down to actually doing the math to support any of your false claims it turns out that all you have is hot air. Your prevaricative manner shows that your claims are false.

[Robust]

  Rincewind said:

But we don't know it because you have refused to say what units this smallest possible distance is measured in -- all you have provided is an unreferenced number, and that, as far as I can work out, is meaningless.

 

Use whatever unit of measure you wish, Rincewind, the maths of it are the same. And the distance measure is not at all unreferenced as you claim. It was given most succinctly by 2 formulas: radius/radian and pi/40.

[Buffy]

Robust: Still want your reaction to post #160.... If you do not understand it, please ask.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Robust]

  C1ay said:

You asked me to name a prime and I did. Now you attempt to turn the discussion elsewhere. Your claim that a closed continuum is obviously one you cannot support. When it comes down to actually doing the math to support any of your false claims it turns out that all you have is hot air. Your prevaricative manner shows that your claims are false.

 

I don't even know what you mean by a prime number, Clay....other than one divisible by no number but itself or unity - the latter invoking an interesting discussion we might take up somewhere down the line. More to the point here - I sense that you are purposefully attepting to confuse the topic by your obviously superior maths knowledge. No need to - obviously you da man!!