Qfwfq Posted April 28, 2005 Report Posted April 28, 2005 How about an area equal to the square root of any prime number? Quote
Robust Posted April 29, 2005 Author Report Posted April 29, 2005 How about an area equal to the square root of any prime number?Would you give me an example, please? Quote
Robust Posted April 29, 2005 Author Report Posted April 29, 2005 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? Quote
Qfwfq Posted April 29, 2005 Report Posted April 29, 2005 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. Quote
Robust Posted April 29, 2005 Author Report Posted April 29, 2005 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. Quote
Kirk Gregory Czuhai Posted April 30, 2005 Report Posted April 30, 2005 Conclusion: This says nothing about whether the state of PI being Irrational or Rationalor otherwise. Specifically, the constant PI is a trancendental number and is neitherRational or Irrational. This would I think debunk your defrocking of PI.... :circle: MaddogPlease 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 cannotbe 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: Quote
C1ay Posted April 30, 2005 Report Posted April 30, 2005 How 'bout it then? No need to be coy, man. What prime number might you have in mind?2^25964951-1 Quote
Robust Posted May 1, 2005 Author Report Posted May 1, 2005 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 cannotbe 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. Quote
C1ay Posted May 1, 2005 Report Posted May 1, 2005 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. Quote
Robust Posted May 1, 2005 Author Report Posted May 1, 2005 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.... Quote
Rincewind Posted May 1, 2005 Report Posted May 1, 2005 Doesn't do anything for me, Clay. I prefer 3.16049382716....I never realised that 3.16049382716.... was a prime number. :circle: Quote
Robust Posted May 1, 2005 Author Report Posted May 1, 2005 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 Quote
Rincewind Posted May 1, 2005 Report Posted May 1, 2005 ... 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. Quote
C1ay Posted May 1, 2005 Report Posted May 1, 2005 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." - PythagorasYou 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. Quote
Robust Posted May 2, 2005 Author Report Posted May 2, 2005 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. Quote
Buffy Posted May 2, 2005 Report Posted May 2, 2005 Robust: Still want your reaction to post #160.... If you do not understand it, please ask. Cheers,Buffy Quote
Robust Posted May 2, 2005 Author Report Posted May 2, 2005 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!! Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.