variable pi formula

Science and Technology
41

Your comments are very good
2 mm can be 2.0003 mm
100 mm can be 100.001 mm
Do you think it might make sense to build a precise instrument to examine the theory of variable Pie

42
Your comments are very good 2 mm can be 2.0003 mm 100 mm can be 100.001 mm Do you think it might make sense to build a precise instrument to examine the theory of variable Pie
Pi is a transcental number, like '2' is an integer number - they do not vary. Any precise instrument you propose to build will only demonstrate the degree of precision with which you have made the apparatus. No instrument is absolutely precise, it can't be.
43

In my opinion, mathematics delayed the development of geometry.
Fixed pie is incorrect mathematical result, existing for centuries.
Who would agree to admit it?

44

diameter in mm -------------------pi
0.001 --------------------------3.158905
0.01 --------------------------- 3.147077
0.1 ---------------------------- 3.1433321
1 -------------------------------3.1421477
10 ----------------------------- 3.1417732
100 ---------------------------- 3.1416548
1000 -------------------------- 3.1416173

45
The device is very successful and only needs to improve the laser beam ( to tiny dot)
A "tiny dot" ???????? And what is the dimension of that tiny dot?
46
In my opinion, mathematics delayed the development of geometry. Fixed pie is incorrect mathematical result, existing for centuries. Who would agree to admit it?
That depends on how you define Pi, if you define Pi like everybody else does then it is a definite fixed number. If you have your own definition, then feel free but don't expect anybody else to follow you.
47

1mm

48
There is no mistakes. With focused laser beam ,it is possible to measure angle of 0.001 degree.
And what if the angle of degree is smaller than than 0.001 degree? Where is your accuracy? You keep insisting that our reality can yield accurate measurements and yes, for practical purposes, in our reality local measurements to 0.0001 is close enough. But consider a deviation of 0.001 degrees over a distance of 1000 light years. The resulting error is staggering. You cannot discover universal constants from a relativistic point of view. Only theoretical mathematical can solve for universal potential. Mathematics are invariant.
49

Pi is a number that says … how big circumference of a circle to its diameter
Reality shows that this number depends on the actual size of the circuit
Actual size is the number of mm
Math decided actual size does not matter.
Who would say math is wrong?

50
Pi is a number that says ... how big circumference of a circle to its diameter
No, Pi is ratio of the circumference to the diameter of an ideal Euclidean circle, if you define it differently then at least have the courtesy to acknowledge that fact, call it something else to avoid confusion, and not treat us all as idiots.
51
Pi is a number that says ... how big circumference of a circle to its diameter
No, Pi is ratio of the circumference to the diameter of an ideal Euclidean circle, if you define it differently then at least have the courtesy to acknowledge that fact, call it something else to avoid confusion, and not treat us all as idiots. Ideal Euclidean circle has 188mm diameter ? or 12.7mm ? or any circle ?
52

It is any sized circle, that is, a loci of points equidistant from a common origin on the (flat) Euclidean plane.

53
It is any sized circle, that is, a loci of points equidistant from a common origin on the (flat) Euclidean plane.
Such definition of points, the concept of the line does not appear If there is no line, so there is no geometry The line is the basic concept of geometry Line has length and shape Point has no length and no form Setting the point is meaningless
54
It is any sized circle, that is, a loci of points equidistant from a common origin on the (flat) Euclidean plane.
Such definition of points, the concept of the line does not appear If there is no line, so there is no geometry The line is the basic concept of geometry Line has length and shape Point has no length and no form Setting the point is meaningless Of course not. A circle is not a line.
55
It is any sized circle, that is, a loci of points equidistant from a common origin on the (flat) Euclidean plane.
Such definition of points, the concept of the line does not appear If there is no line, so there is no geometry The line is the basic concept of geometry Line has length and shape Point has no length and no form Setting the point is meaningless Of course not. A circle is not a line. simple line and sophisticated lines http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/pi-day-questionby-aetzbar-69915.html
56

You’re going to have to do better than referencing yourself. A line is straight and can be defined by two points.

57
Your comments are very good 2 mm can be 2.0003 mm 100 mm can be 100.001 mm Do you think it might make sense to build a precise instrument to examine the theory of variable Pie
We cannot build a physical instrument to study universal properties and variants, except by approximation. The instruments of observation and measurement themselves introduce variants. In theoretical mathematics 2mm can never be 2.0003 mm and 100 mm cannot ever be 100.001 mm. The numbers are NOT equal. And moreover .0003 deviation in 2 mm does not translate in a .001 deviation in 100 mm. YOU are introducing the variants and render any calculation inexact. You are still saying that 2 can be NOT 2 and that 100 can be NOT 100, which totally disregards the exact mathematical function of theoretical science. I can see why you say that "practical application" of science can be inexact, such as used by a machinist turning a steel cylinder or a ball bearing to within a deviation of .001 degrees, but applied science (functionality) is not the same as exact theoretical science. Did you know that it is impossible to construct a perfect sphere on earth? Gravity alone introduces deviations. But YOU ARE WRONG when you say that abstract mathematics are variant. You want to do away with objective science altogether! The truth is that ONLY abstract mathematics can be exact, because it is not hindered by consideration of variant physical conditions. And, of course, is the reason why you insist that a circle is a physical object, rather than a theoretical abstraction.
58
It is any sized circle, that is, a loci of points equidistant from a common origin on the (flat) Euclidean plane.
Such definition of points, the concept of the line does not appear If there is no line, so there is no geometry The line is the basic concept of geometry Line has length and shape Point has no length and no form Setting the point is meaningless Of course not. A circle is not a line. simple line and sophisticated lines http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/pi-day-questionby-aetzbar-69915.html This forum is lucky He discussed the issue revolutionary (variable pie) enters history
59
It is any sized circle, that is, a loci of points equidistant from a common origin on the (flat) Euclidean plane.
Such definition of points, the concept of the line does not appear If there is no line, so there is no geometry The line is the basic concept of geometry Line has length and shape Point has no length and no form Setting the point is meaningless That does not affect the definition of Pi as the points are arbitrarily close together - which is one definition of a line.
60
Your comments are very good 2 mm can be 2.0003 mm 100 mm can be 100.001 mm Do you think it might make sense to build a precise instrument to examine the theory of variable Pie
We cannot build a physical instrument to study universal properties and variants, except by approximation. The instruments of observation and measurement themselves introduce variants. In theoretical mathematics 2mm can never be 2.0003 mm and 100 mm cannot ever be 100.001 mm. The numbers are NOT equal. And moreover .0003 deviation in 2 mm does not translate in a .001 deviation in 100 mm. YOU are introducing the variants and render any calculation inexact. You are still saying that 2 can be NOT 2 and that 100 can be NOT 100, which totally disregards the exact mathematical function of theoretical science. I can see why you say that "practical application" of science can be inexact, such as used by a machinist turning a steel cylinder or a ball bearing to within a deviation of .001 degrees, but applied science (approximation) is not the same as exact theoretical science. Did you know that it is impossible to construct a perfect sphere on earth? Gravity alone introduces deviations. But YOU ARE WRONG when you say that abstract mathematics are variant. You want to do away with objective science altogether! The truth is that ONLY abstract mathematics can be exact, because it is not hindered by consideration of variant physical conditions. And, of course, is the reason why you insist that a circle is a physical object, rather than a theoretical abstraction. Theoretical science says (A1:A2) = (O1:O2) Practical science says (A1:A2) > (O1:O2) Who is right? Practical science