My Math Forum Geometric experiment

 Geometry Geometry Math Forum

 July 2nd, 2017, 01:42 AM #1 Banned Camp   Joined: Jul 2010 Posts: 118 Thanks: 0 Geometric experiment From point C draw two straight lines. ( the angle between them is 1 degree) Between the lines there is arc A. ( radius of arc 100 m) Tangent B appears at the midpoint of A The formulas for calculating A and B do not take into account , the actual radius length ( 100 m or 0.00001 m ) According to these formulas , always B > A According to the description i presented , it is possible that A > B
July 2nd, 2017, 02:13 AM   #2
Senior Member

Joined: Jun 2015
From: England

Posts: 695
Thanks: 199

Quote:
 Originally Posted by aetzbar From point C draw two straight lines. ( the angle between them is 1 degree) Between the lines there is arc A. ( radius of arc 100 m) Tangent B appears at the midpoint of A The formulas for calculating A and B do not take into account , the actual radius length ( 100 m or 0.00001 m ) According to these formulas , always B > A According to the description i presented , it is possible that A > B
If you want to be taken seriously by a bunch of mathematicians, I recommend you start by defining your figure properly ( ie completely and unambiguously)
and then present supporting mathematics for your assertions.

July 2nd, 2017, 06:12 AM   #3
Math Team

Joined: Jan 2015
From: Alabama

Posts: 2,821
Thanks: 750

Quote:
 Originally Posted by aetzbar From point C draw two straight lines. ( the angle between them is 1 degree) Between the lines there is arc A. ( radius of arc 100 m)
I take it that C is the center of arc A.

Quote:
 Tangent B appears at the midpoint of A
What do you mean by "Tangent B"? The tangent line to arc A at the midpoint of A?

Quote:
 The formulas for calculating A and B do not take into account , the actual radius length ( 100 m or 0.00001 m )
What do you mean by "calculating" an arc or a line and what "formulas" are you referring to?

Quote:
 According to these formulas , always B > A According to the description i presented , it is possible that A > B
Since A is an arc and B is a point, not numbers, what does "B> A" or "A> B" mean to begin with? Do you mean the distances from A and B to C?
Since a tangent to a circle is always outside the circle, except at the point of tangency, the distance from C to B is always greater than the distance from C to A, except at the point of tangency. In that sense $B\ge A$.

I suggest that you take a good course in basic geometry before posting any more of these. I say that assuming you are neither a fool nor a troll.

 July 2nd, 2017, 08:26 AM #4 Banned Camp   Joined: Jul 2010 Posts: 118 Thanks: 0 You're right, the wording is not good. I present a picture. Polygon of 360 ribs, with circle in it. a is the circumference of the circle. b is the circumference of the polygon. The formulas say , b > a and i say , there is a condition , a > b Details in the article. http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/2/2357...506e265a07.pdf
July 2nd, 2017, 08:43 AM   #5
Senior Member

Joined: Jun 2015
From: England

Posts: 695
Thanks: 199

Quote:
 Originally Posted by aetzbar I present a picture.
I see no picture.

Quote:
 Polygon of 360 ribs, with circle in it.
I presume you mean the incircle.

Quote:
 The formulas say , b > a
In which case yes I agree

Quote:
 and i say , there is a condition , a > b
I see no supporting mathematics, although it is true that for the circumcircle, which is a different circle.

a > b

 July 2nd, 2017, 08:53 AM #6 Senior Member   Joined: May 2016 From: USA Posts: 823 Thanks: 335 The OP is just silly. He is talking about measurement errors. He doesn't seem to realize that there is a perfectly good mathematical theory of errors. In my opinion, mathematical terminology is imbued with and weakened by Platonist metaphysics. No "irrational" number has ever been measured and recorded exactly. In other words, there is no physical evidence for the existence of the set of "real" numbers. So what? But mathematical objects are frequently idealizations of physical objects. If we called real numbers "ideal" numbers a lot of nonsense would be avoided. Of course that is not going to happen. There is too much intellectual capital tied up in the term "real number." So people with a distaste for metaphysics, or at least a distaste for Platonism, just recognize that pi relates to the perfect circles of the human imagination, not to constructions in a lab. What relates to constructions in a lab is a range of rational approximations to pi. Whether or not we are Platonists, most of us understand why physical measurement errors are irrelevant to pure mathematics by late adolescence. Thanks from v8archie and Joppy
July 2nd, 2017, 12:18 PM   #7
Banned Camp

Joined: Jul 2010

Posts: 118
Thanks: 0

Mathematics can not support my idea

Quote:
 Originally Posted by studiot I see no picture. I presume you mean the incircle. In which case yes I agree I see no supporting mathematics, although it is true that for the circumcircle, which is a different circle. a > b
Only the actual experiment can prove the idea.

I apologize for my English . i use Google translation.

thanks

July 2nd, 2017, 12:51 PM   #8
Senior Member

Joined: Jun 2015
From: England

Posts: 695
Thanks: 199

Quote:
 Originally Posted by aetzbar Only the actual experiment can prove the idea. I apologize for my English . i use Google translation. thanks
Your English is not the problem.

You cannot prove anything in Mathematics by experiment.

I would think that the nearest you can get would be to show or demonstrate that

5 - 3 = 2

by having 5 counters and taking 3 away.

but demonstrating one example is not proof in the mathematical sense.

 July 2nd, 2017, 01:06 PM #9 Banned Camp   Joined: Jul 2010 Posts: 118 Thanks: 0 Mathematicians will not agree with what i say here. The mathematicians decided that a circle is a mathematical subject. But this is not true, a circle is a physical issue. Thus, for 2,000 years, mathematicians have not discovered the idea of changing pi Mathematicians will not agree with what I say here thanks
July 2nd, 2017, 01:20 PM   #10
Banned Camp

Joined: Jul 2010

Posts: 118
Thanks: 0

Math is perfect within itself

Quote:
 Originally Posted by JeffM1 The OP is just silly. He is talking about measurement errors. He doesn't seem to realize that there is a perfectly good mathematical theory of errors. In my opinion, mathematical terminology is imbued with and weakened by Platonist metaphysics. No "irrational" number has ever been measured and recorded exactly. In other words, there is no physical evidence for the existence of the set of "real" numbers. So what? But mathematical objects are frequently idealizations of physical objects. If we called real numbers "ideal" numbers a lot of nonsense would be avoided. Of course that is not going to happen. There is too much intellectual capital tied up in the term "real number." So people with a distaste for metaphysics, or at least a distaste for Platonism, just recognize that pi relates to the perfect circles of the human imagination, not to constructions in a lab. What relates to constructions in a lab is a range of rational approximations to pi. Whether or not we are Platonists, most of us understand why physical measurement errors are irrelevant to pure mathematics by late adolescence.
The mathematics is perfect only within itself.
The mathematics is discrete and discontinuous.
The geometric line is continuous, and mathematics can not handle it.
Thus, mathematics has not discovered the idea of variable pie, for 2000 years.
Thanks

 Tags experiment, geometric

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post GreenBeast Physics 0 April 18th, 2016 07:02 AM shunya Probability and Statistics 3 February 15th, 2016 12:14 PM Chikis Physics 6 February 19th, 2013 01:12 PM Hitesh Gakhar Algebra 1 January 25th, 2010 12:11 AM johnny Applied Math 1 July 21st, 2009 08:42 AM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top