July 5th, 2017, 06:56 AM  #1 
Banned Camp Joined: Jul 2010 Posts: 118 Thanks: 0  Never existed  a fixed number of circles.
Never existed – a fixed number of circles. But always exists – a fixed number of squares. The mathematics of squares is very simple Square circumference will be marked with c Square diagonal will be marked with d Two squares are arbitrarily selected. C1 = 3 mm c2 = 137 mm If c 1 = 3 mm , then d 1 = ( 3 : 4 ) root 2 If c 2 = 137 mm , then d 2 = ( 137 : 4 ) root 2 Therefor c1 : c 2 = d 1 : d 2 c 1 : d 1 = c 2 : d 2 = 4 : ( root 2 ) = K1 K1 is the constant number of all squares ( 2.8284271…) The mathematics of circles is not simple Circle circumference will be marked with c Circle diameter will be marked with d Two circles are arbitrarily selected c 1 = 3 mm , c 2 = 137 mm Now divide the C1 into 360 equal parts Each part is a small arc that its length = 3 mm : 360 = 0.008333…mm To each end of one arc , we add a straight line, marked with r The straight lines create an angle of 1 degree Length of 2r = 3 : 360 \ sin 0.5 = 0.9549417 2r is d1 of c 1 0.9549417 is d 1 of c 1 C 1 : d 1 = 3 : 0.9549417 = 3.141553 To be more precise, we subtract 0.01% from 0.9549417 because the arc is very crooked, and it longer then the string C 1 : d 1 = 3 : 0.9548745 = 3.1417741 Now divide the C2 into 360 equal parts Each part is a small arc that is long = 137 mm : 360 = 0.380555…mm To each end of one arc ,we add a straight line, marked with r The straight lines create an angle of 1 degree Length of 2r = 137 : 360 \ sin 0.5 = 43.609185 2r is d 2 of c 2 43.609185 is d 2 of c 2 C 2 : d 2 = 137 : 43.609 = 3.141553 To be more precise, we subtract 0.002 % from 43.609185  because The arc is not very crooked , and it very little longer from the string. C 2 : d 2 = 137 : 43.608313 = 3.1416028 C 1 : d 1 = = = = = = = = = 3.1417741 C 1 : c 2 ( is not = ) c 2 : d 2 These figures illustrate the very small change in the ratio c : d This ratio depends on c When C is close to zero mm , the ratio is maximum ( 3.164) When c is close to infinity mm , the ratio is minimum ( 3.1416) The mean ratio of 3.15 will be at c = 0.001 mm . All that is said is a theory, and only a real measurement can prove it Aetzbar 
July 5th, 2017, 07:11 AM  #2 
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,030 Thanks: 2341 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra 
Let's close this thread.

July 5th, 2017, 07:18 AM  #3 
Banned Camp Joined: Jul 2010 Posts: 118 Thanks: 0  why ?
Why close? You can not answer me It is always worthwhile to express ideas, and you can ignore them. Maybe someone will find interest? I do not want to be answered, but I do ask that I do not close Thanks 
July 5th, 2017, 07:39 AM  #4 
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,030 Thanks: 2341 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra 
I have answrred you already, but you are unwilling or unable to understand. You refuse to engage with anyone who disagrees with your ideas other than to repeat them ad nauseam. There is nothing of value here, all it does is to risk confusing people who are genuinely trying to learn.

July 5th, 2017, 07:46 AM  #5  
Senior Member Joined: Feb 2016 From: Australia Posts: 1,397 Thanks: 479 Math Focus: Yet to find out.  Quote:
There is no ignorance more profound than that of someone who is not willing to learn and accept fault. And yes, this requires one to be rather persistent and motivated, but heck, there's always going to be some form of light at the end of the tunnel, it's worth the effort. How do you expect one to be sympathetic in such a situation? Only an ignorant person could possibly be possessed by sympathy in such a scenario. Anyways, please, if you have time to do this, why not do something productive! A large number of people would kill to have a bit of extra time in their day to sit around and ponder mathematics. If you happen to have that extra time, don't waste it!  
July 5th, 2017, 07:50 AM  #6  
Banned Camp Joined: Jul 2010 Posts: 118 Thanks: 0  why ? Quote:
If anyone finds it interesting, of course I will. Why do you come up with an idea of closing? What's the point? Will you be pleased if they silence me? Or do you suggest just reciting what is written in books? I believe in what I publish, and you reject, and you can certainly disqualify. But why shut up? Thanks  
July 5th, 2017, 08:00 AM  #7 
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,030 Thanks: 2341 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra 
Yet again you ignore the answer I have given. This is why we should close the thread: because you neither listen nor understand. It's not a conversation, it's you repeating your nonsense over and over again. It doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. Mathematics doesn't care about belief, it cares about proof which you don't have. 
July 5th, 2017, 08:02 AM  #8  
Banned Camp Joined: Jul 2010 Posts: 118 Thanks: 0  I know my idea is very strange Quote:
But I'm sure he's right. so what to do ? It's enough for me to publish. I'm not looking for approval I'm not looking for support It's enough for me to publish, and whoever finds interest will find. I answer only to someone who writes to me, and if you do not write it's fine. Why close? That is the question Thanks  
July 5th, 2017, 08:10 AM  #9  
Banned Camp Joined: Jul 2010 Posts: 118 Thanks: 0  why to close Quote:
You can ignore what I write, and that's okay. You're 100 percent sure I'm wrong and talk nonsense, you're allowed. If the method of closing will be accepted .... Where does our company come from? Tomorrow someone will be sure of himself, and will offer to close what you write. I do not disturb anyone who wants to read And who will not? He will also be blessed Thanks  
July 5th, 2017, 08:14 AM  #10  
Senior Member Joined: Feb 2016 From: Australia Posts: 1,397 Thanks: 479 Math Focus: Yet to find out.  Quote:
Because your online presence impacts other people! That's why. We all make mistakes, but it's a totally different situation to actively claim and 'publish' results that you believe (without consideration of review) to be true. People who are new to the field of mathematics, and who are not familiar with, or even aware of the dogma will likely not view every bit of math with skepticism and careful eyes. This can lead to a perhaps warped view of ideas which could take a large portion of time to correct. Unlearning is much more difficult that learning. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk  

Tags 
circles, existed, fixed, number 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
How do you show a Möbius transformation maps circles to circles and lines?  math93  Geometry  0  November 3rd, 2015 03:43 PM 
RiDo Circles. Sin & Cos Circles  RiDo  Algebra  2  June 21st, 2012 02:31 AM 
Number of Necklace/Bracelets With Fixed Number of Beads  UnreasonableSin  Number Theory  2  June 13th, 2010 01:03 AM 
Convert binary range with fixed number of zeros/ones  hansdejong  Number Theory  2  June 30th, 2009 05:15 PM 
Fixed Points  mathbalarka  Calculus  1  December 31st, 1969 04:00 PM 