My Math Forum A new idea in geometry

 Geometry Geometry Math Forum

 June 30th, 2017, 05:16 PM #1 Banned Camp   Joined: Jul 2010 Posts: 118 Thanks: 0 A new idea in geometry Since it is impossible to prove, that the ratio of diameters of two circles = the ratio of the circumference of these two circles, A new geometric has been created. What is your opinion ? Sincerely Aetzbar The Pi revolution By Aetzbar New Geometry of Circles, Which has a unique Pi to each Diameter. The new geometry, has a new Formula Pi of D = 3.1416 + root of ( 0.0000003 : D ) D is the Diameter of a circle, above 0.001 mm The new formula produces the following numbers of pi D of Circle (mm) Unique Pi 0 3.164 (pi maximum) 0.001 3.1589205 0.01 3.1470772 0.1 3.1433321 1 3.1421477 10 3.1417732 100 3.1416548 1000 3.1416173 1000000 3.1416005 10000000 3.1416002 1000000000000… 3.1416 (pi minimum) The Pi revolution According to the conventional mathematics, Pi of each D = 3.1416 There for, it is very important number. According to the new geometry of circles, There are two important numbers. Pi minimum = 3.1416 Pi maximum = 3.164 Between pi minimum to pi maximum, there is a unique pi to each D Pi of D = 3.1416 + root of ( 0.0000003 : D )
June 30th, 2017, 06:05 PM   #2
Math Team

Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 1,659
Thanks: 652

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by aetzbar Since it is impossible to prove, that the ratio of diameters of two circles = the ratio of the circumference of these two circles, A new geometric has been created. What is your opinion ? Sincerely Aetzbar The Pi revolution By Aetzbar New Geometry of Circles, Which has a unique Pi to each Diameter. The new geometry, has a new Formula Pi of D = 3.1416 + root of ( 0.0000003 : D ) D is the Diameter of a circle, above 0.001 mm The new formula produces the following numbers of pi D of Circle (mm) Unique Pi 0 3.164 (pi maximum) 0.001 3.1589205 0.01 3.1470772 0.1 3.1433321 1 3.1421477 10 3.1417732 100 3.1416548 1000 3.1416173 1000000 3.1416005 10000000 3.1416002 1000000000000… 3.1416 (pi minimum) The Pi revolution According to the conventional mathematics, Pi of each D = 3.1416 There for, it is very important number. According to the new geometry of circles, There are two important numbers. Pi minimum = 3.1416 Pi maximum = 3.164 Between pi minimum to pi maximum, there is a unique pi to each D Pi of D = 3.1416 + root of ( 0.0000003 : D )
As soon as I see any proof of what you say, I will listen. This is gibberish.

-Dan

June 30th, 2017, 07:54 PM   #3
Math Team

Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,031
Thanks: 2342

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
 Originally Posted by aetzbar Since it is impossible to prove, that the ratio of diameters of two circles = the ratio of the circumference of these two circles, A new geometric has been created.
No, it's not impossible to prove at all: Proof: Pi is Constant | Math Wiki | Fandom powered by Wikia

The rest of your post is just some stuff you've made up. I guess you did so because you take a strictly practical approach to measuring circles, but you can't know that your physical circles are actually circles - in fact they can't be.

A circle is a mathematical ideal with a strict definition and that ideal gives rise to the constant $\pi$.

June 30th, 2017, 08:36 PM   #4
Senior Member

Joined: May 2016
From: USA

Posts: 823
Thanks: 335

Quote:
 Originally Posted by v8archie No, it's not impossible to prove at all: Proof: Pi is Constant | Math Wiki | Fandom powered by Wikia The rest of your post is just some stuff you've made up. I guess you did so because you take a strictly practical approach to measuring circles, but you can't know that your physical circles are actually circles - in fact they can't be. A circle is a mathematical ideal with a strict definition and that ideal gives rise to the constant $\pi$.
If I remember correctly, the proof that the ratio of the circumferences of two (ideal) circles equals the ratio of their diameters precedes Archimedes. Archimedes then showed that it was not some simple rational number and, again remembering perhaps incorrectly, also showed that the same ratio applied to the volumes of spheres and cylinders.

A lot of nonsense arises because we teach nothing about the history of mathematics. Of course, the whole idea of public education in the US today is to make sure that people feel good about being ignorant.

Admittedly, I also think that the Platonist metaphysics of some mathematicians gets in the way of teaching mathematics to those of a practical bent. I'd be a lot more explicit that many mathematical "objects" have no physical reality that can be verified empirically. Whether or not they are "real" metaphysically, they act as simplifications that greatly assist logical thought and, to the degree that we can physically measure, result in fairly simple experimental "laws" of physics.

Last edited by JeffM1; June 30th, 2017 at 08:40 PM.

June 30th, 2017, 10:30 PM   #5
Math Team

Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 1,659
Thanks: 652

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by JeffM1 Of course, the whole idea of public education in the US today is to make sure that people feel good about being ignorant.

-Dan

 June 30th, 2017, 10:44 PM #6 Banned Camp   Joined: Jul 2010 Posts: 118 Thanks: 0 pi belongs to physics, not to mathematics Already many years ago math decided, that the ratio of diameter to diameter = to the ratio of circumference to circumference. This decision created a fixed pi, but pi is changing. A variable pi belongs to physics , not to math. thanks http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/2/2357...506e265a07.pdf
July 1st, 2017, 12:59 AM   #7
Math Team

Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,031
Thanks: 2342

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
 Originally Posted by aetzbar but pi is changing.
No it isn't. It is defined as the ratio of a circle's circumference to it's diameter and we know that that is fixed.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by aetzbar A variable pi belongs to physics , not to math.
Physicists find that the usual value of Pi give much more accurate results than the errors that would be introduced by your fanciful ideas.

 July 1st, 2017, 01:57 AM #8 Banned Camp   Joined: Jul 2010 Posts: 118 Thanks: 0 I know my idea is very strange , but it's true. I know my idea is very strange , but it's true. To make it easy to handle circles, you have to agree. The ratio of diameters of two circles = their ratio of circumference. Each measurement confirms this consent. Only a very precise measurement will disprove this agreement. And this idea I present. Thanks
July 1st, 2017, 02:00 AM   #9
Senior Member

Joined: Jun 2015
From: England

Posts: 695
Thanks: 199

Quote:
 Of course, the whole idea of public education in the US today is to make sure that people feel good about being ignorant.
Sadly that extends beyond the US both historically and geographically

Quote:
 Juvenal "panem et circenses"
As to the OP, modern maths (and physics) has developed well beyond the ancient Greeks and Euclid.

Today we recognise Pi as a respectable number on the number line in its own right.
As such it is indeed a constant, just as is any other real number.

Yes, Aetzbar, in such circumstances, it remains to prove that this number represents the ratio of the circumference to the diameter for all circles.
But, as has already been pointed out, this was proved by the ancient Greeks for Euclidian Geometry.

But Geometry, like the rest of maths, has marched onwards and we now know that there are many geometries for which Pi does not represent this ratio, for a variety of reasons. Two such circumstances would be the intrinsic curvature of manifolds and the application of projective geometry.

The Physics of Einstein tells us that our universe is not Euclidian and that circles vary in their appearance, due both to the so called curvature of spacetime and relative velocities.

Even classical Physics has its oddities.
The Science of Geodesy refers to measuring the Geometry of the Earth, as it is not a perfect Euclidian sphere for a variety of physical reasons.
But what is the 'shape of the Earth' ?
The land surface? The fluid surface? The surface defined by points of equal gravity? The surface defined by points of equal magnetic field?
They are all different.

So Aetzbar, a whole universe of discovery and wonder awaits you out there in both maths and physics.
I suggest you don't waste it running down a blind alley.

Last edited by studiot; July 1st, 2017 at 02:23 AM.

 July 1st, 2017, 02:29 AM #10 Banned Camp   Joined: Jul 2010 Posts: 118 Thanks: 0 The tiny ineqality You're right 2000 years Academy recites that the ratio of diameters to two circles exactly equal to their ratio of circumference . The truth is ... the ratio is not exactly equal This tiny inequality, only accurate measurement can detect Such a measurement appears in an article I have attached Thanks

 Tags geometry, idea

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post markyky Geometry 2 April 29th, 2015 03:36 PM chuackl Calculus 14 December 30th, 2013 06:37 AM zachrox68 Calculus 1 November 4th, 2013 08:03 PM casey13 Calculus 21 May 29th, 2012 11:42 PM puneet Algebra 2 August 22nd, 2008 09:26 AM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top