What do you think about pi - should it exist?

[Eudaimonist]

Pi is sinful. Let them eat cake! Angelfood!

 

[Corey]

I personally like i. But then I've always liked imaginary things.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You think my highest level of education is relevant?

relevent, and, I'd wager, most amusing.

I know better.

That remains to be seen.

 

[Nathan Poe]

"Let your yes be yes and your no be no for whatever is more than these is of the evil one" - Jesus

Is pi infinite? Yes or No? Yes, in principle... but no because in reality you can't calculate it? That contradicts the above and is therefore sin.

Pi is not infinite -- it's somewhere between 3 and 4.

 

[Nathan Poe]

God does not create confusing relationships. It is written "God is not the author of confusion but of peace" 1Co 14:33 . I therefore am justified in saying that just because you have a sign like "divide" doesn't mean you can always use it.

Let's see how you handle my scriptures...

But God did say be fruitful and multiply...

So, what exactly happens in this Math Hell you're ready to consign us to? Long division without a calculator?

 

[Washington]

My answer would be that you can't have it any other way. You can't make a circle without using pi; similarly, you can't have euclidean geometry without allowing for circles to be made. In fact, given that pi shows up in other equations and places, not just circles, it's inescapable. You'd have to ditch math, geometry, the works entirely to escape pi.

Ah yes. In this world for sure. But god, being able to do anything he wants, certainly could have constructed our universe so that pi came out to a rational number. Couldn't he?

 

[anonymous1515]

But God did say be fruitful and multiply...

So, what exactly happens in this Math Hell you're ready to consign us to? Long division without a calculator?​

Pure Gold.​

 

[Morcova]

Let's see how you handle my scriptures...

The problem is the folks who wrote your scriptures were notoriously bad at describing the natural world with any accuracy. Bats are mammals not birds, the earth isn't flat it's a sphere, the moon isn't a light source, it reflects light.

 

[Patashu]

Ah yes. In this world for sure. But god, being able to do anything he wants, certainly could have constructed our universe so that pi came out to a rational number. Couldn't he?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that even God cannot violate logic. You can't change the value of the constant '3' just like you can't change the value of the constant 'pi'.

 

[Patashu]

But God did say be fruitful and multiply...

So, what exactly happens in this Math Hell you're ready to consign us to? Long division without a calculator?​

All we do every day is try to solve Goldbach's Conjecture! Repent, math hell is a terrrrible place!​

 

[Washington]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that even God cannot violate logic. You can't change the value of the constant '3' just like you can't change the value of the constant 'pi'.

Consider: you're at the North Pole and you establish a point X in the ice. (doing it here for easier visualization) From that point mark out a series of many points all equidistant from X a few feet or so away. Taken together these many points would compose a circle. By measuring the distance from any point on this circle, through point X to the other side of the circle we can determine the circle's diameter. By measuring around the circle we can also determine its circumference. And knowing both of these we can establish a ratio between the two. c/d = 3.14159, or pi. All pretty elementary stuff And this ratio holds no matter how large the circle. Well, maybe.

Suppose that instead of making the equidistant points a few feet from your X, you make them much, much farther away. Say, 6,214.94 miles from the North Pole. Measuring the circumference of the circle formed by these many points, you find that it's 24,901.5 mile long. And doing your calculations you find to your surprise that the ratio of c/d is NOT 3.14159, BUT 2.00336. What happened?

The 24,901.5 circle, of course, coincides with the Earth's equator. Measuring a few feet from X on Earth's surface does little if anything to affect pi's value; however, by simply going out much, much farther from X on the same surface, pi's value changes. Obviously, the ratio of 2.00336 is a function of the geometry of the surface on which the circle was scribed: an oblate spheroid----but also note that the smaller circle of a few feet was scribed on that very same oblate spheroid.

In any event, it's easy to see how the value of pi can change with a change in geometry. So, all god would have to do to make the ratio of c to d a rational number is to change the geometry of the universe a bit. And I would imagine that would be no great feat for an all powerful god. Just bend it ever so little to make c/d = 3.00000000000000. . . .

 

[anonymous1515]

Well, thats not true. In measuring the radius from the north pole to the equator you are not measuring the radius of the circle created by the equator. You're measuring the outside edge of a bowl-shaped 3-dimensional object. The value of pi never changes - you're just measuring incorrectly. Interesting point though!

 

[Washington]

Well, thats not true. In measuring the radius from the north pole to the equator you are not measuring the radius of the circle created by the equator. You're measuring the outside edge of a bowl-shaped 3-dimensional object. The value of pi never changes - you're just measuring incorrectly. Interesting point though!

Evidently you missed my point when I said. "Obviously, the ratio of 2.00336 is a function of the geometry of the surface on which the circle was scribed: an oblate spheroid." And, recall that the circle was not created as the equator, but one that was coincident with the equator. It was created the same way the smaller one at the North Pole was: by a series of points equidistant from a single point, X. Which is pretty much the definition of a circle.

 

[anonymous1515]

Evidently you missed my point when I said. "Obviously, the ratio of 2.00336 is a function of the geometry of the surface on which the circle was scribed: an oblate spheroid." And, recall that the circle was not created as the equator, but one that was coincident with the equator. It was created the same way the smaller one at the North Pole was: by a series of points equidistant from a single point, X. Which is pretty much the definition of a circle.

Hah. Evidently I did miss your point. Sorry bout that (never was a fan of reading what other people write! )

Well, in that case, good post!

 

[Patashu]

Okay, if you're measuring a circle while on a spherical plane then, yes, you would get differing values with radius but you haven't abolished pi; you'd still need to use pi in one or two values if you wanted to write a formula for the circumference of circles on a sphere. (I'm tempted to try and derive one now, actually...)

Consider that spherical geometry, locally, behaves like euclidean geometry. As you inscribed smaller and smaller circles or used bigger and bigger spheres you'd approach pi as the ratio once more.

 

[Patashu]

Okay, I went there.

We have a sphere with radius R. On the sphere's surface a circle is drawn encompassing all points r away from a point o and an angle $ is subtended at the center of the sphere between o and any r. What is the circumference, c, of this circle in terms of r?

$ = r/2piR
x = Rsin$
c = 2pix

thus

c = 2piRsin$ = 2piRsin(r/2piR)

Probably not in simplest terms but you get the idea. And, again, to someone who is bound to the sphere's surface, spherical geometry reduces to euclidean geometry locally anyway. You could discover that pi exists by making your circles smaller and smaller (or higher and higher up if that's allowed)

 

[Washington]

Okay, if you're measuring a circle while on a spherical plane then, yes, you would get differing values with radius but you haven't abolished pi; you'd still need to use pi in one or two values if you wanted to write a formula for the circumference of circles on a sphere. (I'm tempted to try and derive one now, actually...)
Consider that spherical geometry, locally, behaves like euclidean geometry. As you inscribed smaller and smaller circles or used bigger and bigger spheres you'd approach pi as the ratio once more.
______________________________________________________
Okay, I went there.
We have a sphere with radius R. On the sphere's surface a circle is drawn encompassing all points r away from a point o and an angle $ is subtended at the center of the sphere between o and any r. What is the circumference, c, of this circle in terms of r?
$ = r/2piR
x = Rsin$
c = 2pix
thus
c = 2piRsin$ = 2piRsin(r/2piR)
Probably not in simplest terms but you get the idea. And, again, to someone who is bound to the sphere's surface, spherical geometry reduces to euclidean geometry locally anyway. You could discover that pi exists by making your circles smaller and smaller (or higher and higher up if that's allowed)

No argument from me.

The ratio of c/d, whatever it's value, depends on the geometry of the surface on which it's scribed, and on non-Euclidean surfaces, the size of the circle. My only point is that it would seemingly be no great feat for an all powerful god to just bend the geometry of the universe ever so little to make c/d = 3.00000000000000. . . . and make it nice and neat.

 

[anonymous1515]

No argument from me.

The ratio of c/d, whatever it's value, depends on the geometry of the surface on which it's scribed, and on non-Euclidean surfaces, the size of the circle. My only point is that it would seemingly be no great feat for an all powerful god to just bend the geometry of the universe ever so little to make c/d = 3.00000000000000. . . . and make it nice and neat.

is geometry something that God can change? Geometry seems to be on the same level as logic - unchangeable. What do you think?

 

[The Nihilist]

anyone remember the formula to find the surface area of a sphere?

 

[Morcova]

I've never liked math that much..... (always had problems with it as a brat)... this thread is now made of evil and fail.