My Pi challenge

lemmings

Veteran
Nov 5, 2006
2,587
132
California
✟18,469.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It will always have an infinite string of digits, whatever base you take.
pi is exactly 10 is base pi. 4 from base ten is quite irrational though when you try using base pi.
Non-integer representation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Somehow, I think that this is relevant.
20100927.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cabal
Upvote 0

Cabal

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2007
11,592
476
38
London
✟30,012.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
pi is exactly 10 is base pi.

I was gonna say...was pondering this in the shower this morning (what better time for maths) and figured this would be one way of getting it at the expense of making a whole bunch of base-10-rational numbers irrational.

Somehow, I think that this is relevant.

I've been privy to one online debate where someone was trying to claim that atheists were being inconsistent because they accepted the concept of irrational numbers, so they were accepting irrationality. Etymology wasn't this guy's strong point.
 
Upvote 0

lemmings

Veteran
Nov 5, 2006
2,587
132
California
✟18,469.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I was gonna say...was pondering this in the shower this morning (what better time for maths) and figured this would be one way of getting it at the expense of making a whole bunch of base-10-rational numbers irrational.
You really shouldn't be looking at it that way, think about your future competition instead. Rich now, children learn the numbers 0-9. If we convert to base pi, really all they need to know is 0-3. That is 60% less teaching for parents with young children, I call that a win right there. The second win occurs when children try learning how to count to four, it is virtually impossible for them since all integer values greater than three are irrational, you've just eliminated your future competitors to the job market.

I've been privy to one online debate where someone was trying to claim that atheists were being inconsistent because they accepted the concept of irrational numbers, so they were accepting irrationality. Etymology wasn't this guy's strong point.
You know, the comic did propose a solution to these debates.... and it is not like great collections of classical works haven't been destroyed before.
 
Upvote 0

Aces High

Veteran
Jun 27, 2006
2,171
54
36
Sydney
✟17,627.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Pi= 3,14.

Right? No.
Pi= 3,1415?
Right? No.

Pi= 3,141592654...
Well, Pi has a infinite string of digits behind the comma.

But this makes that no one will ever be able to know or tell Pi to the full.
So, Absolute Truth is impossible.
And, as different outstanding theologians (like AV1611VET) have confirmed, God is Absolute Truth.


Hence; God is impossible.

Actually, it's more like hence a categorical error has been committed.
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,592
Northern Ohio
✟314,577.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Pi= 3,14.

Right? No.
Pi= 3,1415?
Right? No.

Pi= 3,141592654...
Well, Pi has a infinite string of digits behind the comma.

But this makes that no one will ever be able to know or tell Pi to the full.
So, Absolute Truth is impossible.
And, as different outstanding theologians (like AV1611VET) have confirmed, God is Absolute Truth.


Hence; God is impossible.
Pi does not exist. You can measure from the inside of a circle or the outside but Pi itself has no substance or existence. That is why it is infinite. Back in the days before CAD when we did drafting the line always had a thickness. That is why all prints were marked. NTS meaning NOT TO SCALE. Because the thickness of the line threw off your attempt to measure your drawing for distance.
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The premise that "there are no absolute truths" is illogical and irrational because the statement itself IS assumed to be absolutely true which if so means there is at least one (that there are not any) which means the premise negates itself. Post 17 is right on regarding this point.
 
Upvote 0

Black Dog

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2015
1,696
573
64
✟4,870.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
One such sentence might be "Sets exist," and the rest of mathematics is a huge deductive process based upon those fundamental assumptions.

I took a fourth year math course that covered this, among other things. It was very interesting.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
All that means is that in the decimal numbering system we use, it can't be expressed. It has a definite value, we just are unaable to express it. I'm not sure of the logical leap you make from that to God not existing.

Oh, pish tosh. It's very easy to express the value of pi.

Pi is PRECISELY equal to C/D, where C is the circumference of a circle and D is the diameter of that same circle.

(My daughter saw this over my shoulder and declared I was a smart alec! ^_^)
 
Upvote 0

The Cadet

SO COOL
Apr 29, 2010
6,290
4,743
Munich
✟45,617.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
But this makes that no one will ever be able to know or tell Pi to the full.
So, Absolute Truth is impossible.

This doesn't follow at all. The fact that a precise decimal representation of a number is impossible does not mean that it is impossible to know the value of that number. Even then, it does not mean that absolute truth is impossible. I could just as easily define a number "phlarg", which is literally an infinite string of random characters. There is absolutely no way to represent phlarg numerically. Does that mean absolute truth is impossible? No, it just means that there is absolutely no way to represent it numerically.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,431.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This doesn't follow at all. The fact that a precise decimal representation of a number is impossible does not mean that it is impossible to know the value of that number. Even then, it does not mean that absolute truth is impossible. I could just as easily define a number "phlarg", which is literally an infinite string of random characters. There is absolutely no way to represent phlarg numerically. Does that mean absolute truth is impossible? No, it just means that there is absolutely no way to represent it numerically.

1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

I once asked the educated elite here how that passage should have been written, and one responded that it should have said,

1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of [about] thirty cubits did compass it round about.

The fact that that word "about" isn't in there is a stumblingblock that fools the educated elite to this day.

That's how easily they can be buffaloed.

They profess themselves to be wise, and they end up getting fooled by the simplest of words.

A better example is Genesis 2, where the fact that the word "had" is not found in a certain verse, educatees claim there are two different accounts of the creation event.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums