The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!

[gravityblock]

Are you high?  What we are talking about is YOUR concept.  How can you demand that I provide a definition for YOUR concept?

All I did was ask you to frame it in a manner grounded in Axiomatic Set Theory.  The point of using ZF(C) is so that mathematics has a common understanding of how things are proven.  One that is free of ambiguity.

So either you don't know how to do this and are too much of an enormous gaping asshole to admit it OR you are deliberately dragging your heels (or perhaps something else but the first one seems the most likely. ).

It is you, who is high.  Pi is not my concept and neither is a dimensionless constant a concept of mine.  I am not demanding that you provide a definition of MY concept as you wrongly asserted.  Is pi a dimensionless constant or not?  Is the circumference only a length, and/or only a distance in a circular path with a time element?  It is you, who is deliberately dragging your heels in answering these simple questions.

Gravock

[MarkE]

It's just too bad for you that you eschew proven methods that can determine very accurate approximations for straight line and arc lengths for a method that is a proven failure for the same tasks.

[gravityblock]

It's just too bad for you that you eschew proven methods that can determine very accurate approximations for straight line and arc lengths for a method that is a proven failure for the same tasks.

Another useless statement and another assertion made by you.

Gravock

[sarkeizen]

Why are you trying to change the subject by bringing in Pythagorean theorem?

I'm not.  Have you done ANY math?  This is just a simple high-school level proof by contradiction.  Assume that your hero the Mathless-Wonder's assertion is true: That drawing steps accurately determines the length of an arc.  Which would imply that it correctly measures a line segment.  However it can not correctly measure the hypotenuse of a triangle.  Which we know is true through approximately 100 other proofs.

QED.  He is wrong about this.  I get that the first time is hard but the next time you doubt your god...or whatever it will be easier.

Pi is not my concept and neither is a dimensionless constant a concept of mine.

I asked you to define what YOU mean.  Do you understand that bit?  Do I need to use smaller words?  If not, how is it possible that you do not understand that idea in your head that you label "dimensionless number" is YOUR CONCEPT of a "dimensionless number".  Not only that but it is the version of the term that can be most usefully argued with YOU.

I am not demanding that you provide a definition of MY concept as you wrongly asserted.

Either you don't know what you are talking about (entirely possible) or we are discussing an idea that is in your head.  If it's in your head.  Then it is, for the purposes of this discussion YOUR CONCEPT.  I can't be asked to usefully define that any more than I can be asked to determine how much head trauma was required for you to accept Mathis's claims.

It seems pretty clear that you don't understand what I'm asking you for.  It is also pretty clear you are too much of an asshole to admit it.

It is you, who is deliberately dragging your heels in answering these simple questions

Please just stop showing how little you know about math.  You were not elected, at any time to the high-council of what gets decided on as simple.  Is 1+1 simple?  There are proofs for that range from 50 lemmas long to the one in Principa Mathematica which is hundreds of pages long.  The point of a set-theoretic approach is to avoid ambiguity.

[MarkE]

Another useless statement and another assertion made by you.

Gravock

LOL.  Archimedes method for determining the circumference in relation to a circle's diameter is excellent.  His method starts out with barely 1% path length error  in the first pass, 0.07% in the third pass and 0.004% in the fifth pass that he worked out by hand 2000 years ago.  This is an easily verified historical and mathematical fact.    On the other hand  as is readily demonstrated with a string, some thumb tacks, a ruler and a soda can or any other cylinder by any fourth grader, your path length estimate comes out with an initial error of over 25%.  A string of length 4 * D wraps the cylinder base one full turn and more than another 90 degrees.  By your own admission your inept method does not improve from that very inaccurate estimate no matter how many iterations one takes.

You can check these numbers on a calculator of your choice.