Jump to content
Science Forums

Irrational Pi Defrocked


Robust

Recommended Posts

I'm not saying that the closed continuum cannot have an irrational area. I'm saying that the closed continuum must be described by a whole number or ending decimal - which the Lindemann pi does not allow.
I think you need to define your terms a little better here: What's the difference between "the area of a closed continuum" and "the description of a closed continuum"? And while you're at it, what is a "closed continuum"?

 

Cheers,

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 195
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Quite. What's the meaning of "a closed continuum must be described by a whole number or ending decimal" and why doesn't the Lindemann pi allow it? How do or don't you "describe" a closed continuum by a number?

 

Buffy:

 

The meaning of 'closed continuum' is clear enough, in 2-D, any area delimited at finite distances by curves, in 3-D, any volume delimited at finite distances by superficies, in 4-D, any 4-volume delimited at finite distances by 3-superficies...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buffy: The meaning of 'closed continuum' is clear enough, in 2-D, any area delimited at finite distances by curves, in 3-D, any volume delimited at finite distances by superficies, in 4-D, any 4-volume delimited at finite distances by 3-superficies...
Yah, I know ("and in n-d any n-volume delimited at finite distances by n-1-superfices"...I love analytic geometry and topology!), but I'd still like to hear Robust's definition....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only he and the Almighty know what words he would use to define it, I was hoping to avoid that, ;) but I think the idea in his head would be the same. It takes a bit of getting used to, before understanding what he says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yah, I know ("and in n-d any n-volume delimited at finite distances by n-1-superfices"...I love analytic geometry and topology!), but I'd still like to hear Robust's definition....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

Do we truly need to go into some kind of academic frothing as how to describe a closed continuum? Wouldn't a simple circle, square or some such suffice? What I.m contesting is that it can be described by otherthan a whole number or ending decimal. - such as the inscribed square of a circle defining it's 4 quadrants. If it by an ending decimal, then why not the area of the circle itself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we truly need to go into some kind of academic frothing as how to describe a closed continuum? Wouldn't a simple circle, square or some such suffice? What I.m contesting is that it can be described by otherthan a whole number or ending decimal. - such as the inscribed square of a circle defining it's 4 quadrants. If it by an ending decimal, then why not the area of the circle itself?
Its not actually academic frothing. If every circle's area is representable either a whole number or a finite number of decimal places, it would be impossible to construct circles of certain radii. Heres a reductio ad absurdum argument. Lets start with saying the limit is one decimal place: then there's no circle with an area between 1.0 and 1.1. Okay, we can have numbers with two decimal places, then there's no circle with an area between 1.00 and 1.01. Okay we can have numbers with three decimal places, then we can't have a circle with an area between 1.000 and 1.001. I can keep doing this forever, describing a circle that cannot exist for some limit of decimal places, which we know is not possible, so therefore we must conclude that there are indeed circles for which the area is describable *only* in terms of an infinite number of decimal places. Now the reason why its important to understand what the description of a closed continuum is is that if you're going to be an engineer or a physisict rather than a mathematitian, you might argue that there are no relevant physical circles beyond enough decimal places to represent a number smaller than the Planck Distance, and thus you could say that the area of all known *physical representations* of circles can be described with no more than 23*(unit of measure)*(integral circle radius) decimal places. What we've been arguing here though is math, where there are indeed no physical limits.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what do you mean by an ending decimal? A finite number of decimal places? Or something else?

Does this mean that you cannot divide a 1 m^2 square in three equally sized rectangles, as they would all have an area of 1/3 m^2, and 1/3 as you know, has an infinite number of decimal places, and therefore no ending decimal?

 

Or does it mean that a rectancle can not have an area of sqrt(2) m^2, sine sqrt(2) is an irrational number, with no ending decimal?

 

Or does it just apply to the circle, which cannot have an area of pi, if pi is an irrational and transcendent number?

 

It might just be me misunderstanding what you are trying to get across, but what I understand from your phrase "a whole number or an ending decimal", is numbers similar to these:

 

16

16,2

16,678545

 

but not numbers like these:

 

0,333333333333...

or

3,141592...

 

since these have an infinite number of decimal places, and therefore not an ending decimal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what do you mean by an ending decimal? A finite number of decimal places? Or something else?

Does this mean that you cannot divide a 1 m^2 square in three equally sized rectangles, as they would all have an area of 1/3 m^2, and 1/3 as you know, has an infinite number of decimal places, and therefore no ending decimal?

 

Or does it mean that a rectancle can not have an area of sqrt(2) m^2, sine sqrt(2) is an irrational number, with no ending decimal?

 

Or does it just apply to the circle, which cannot have an area of pi, if pi is an irrational and transcendent number?

 

It might just be me misunderstanding what you are trying to get across, but what I understand from your phrase "a whole number or an ending decimal", is numbers similar to these:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16

16,2

16,678545

 

but not numbers like these:

 

0,333333333333...

or

3,141592...

 

since these have an infinite number of decimal places, and therefore not an ending decimal.

I mean a finite number of decimal places

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, can you divide a 1 m^2 square in three equally large rectangles, and tell me what the area of each of the resulting rectangles is? How many decimal places do the areas have?
In base 3, they would each be 0.1 m^2.

 

:Alien:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we truly need to go into some kind of academic frothing as how to describe a closed continuum??
Can't Buffy and I have a bit of fun?

 

If it by an ending decimal, then why not the area of the circle itself?
If you mean the area, I've already shown you that a closed continuum may have an area of root 2 over 6, and you agreed that's an irrational number.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...