Poll

Pi or Phew?

Pi=3.14159
12 (92.3%)
Phew=3.17157
1 (7.7%)
Still not sure
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 13

Voting closed: September 21, 2018, 01:52:10 AM

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8   Go Down

Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157

  • 225 Replies
  • 42377 Views
*

Danang

  • 5990
  • +28/-16
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157
« Reply #180 on: September 28, 2018, 01:46:46 AM »
A maths expert said "radian is confusing".
That's what I felt so far. As I said above, you'll go no where with this method.
So I reject any approximation & speculative methods. All of typical methods are problematic, including da famous Euler's identity.
I hope Jack won't repeat the same question again.  8)
Logged
• South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/ ✌
*

MicroBeta

  • 2490
  • +1/-0
Re: Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157
« Reply #181 on: September 28, 2018, 01:48:59 AM »
Quote from: Danang on September 28, 2018, 12:11:41 AM
Quote from: markjo on September 27, 2018, 08:05:37 PM
Quote from: Danang on September 27, 2018, 07:29:31 PM
This is my method to verify the diameter.
By slicing the hole evenly of course -- but don't confuse with the paper.
Try this at home  8).


Great. Now how did you measure the circumference?

As usual, supposing you measure D & C with the right precision, you'll fine D times 3.17157 will be C.
By manual way you might get a very shorter result than it should be, due to unstraight path or 'slipped' etc. But its difference is not as visible as C in pi calculation.
Perhaps the diameter is around 11.92cm which gives C=37.8 cm.

For any size, Phew works all the time. I use ruler and a material that by default has lines >> Sarung  ;D
You used that ruler to get 11.92 cm?  Seriously?!?

The smallest increment on that thing is 0.1 cm and you want us to believe you are able to discern increments of 0.01 cm from that.  Do you have Steve Austin’s bionic eye? 

The most accurate anyone can be using any visual scale is one half of the smallest increment on that scale so calling your measure down to ±0.01 cm is just plain bullshit.

Elementary school students do this exact test and get 3.141 each and every time...IOW, you get your ass handed to you by every grammar school kid on the planet who can read a ruler.

Mike
Logged
Since it costs 2.72¢ to produce a penny, putting in your 2¢ if really worth 5.44¢.
*

MicroBeta

  • 2490
  • +1/-0
Re: Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157
« Reply #182 on: September 28, 2018, 02:01:50 AM »
Quote from: Danang on September 28, 2018, 01:46:46 AM
A maths expert said "radian is confusing".
That's what I felt so far. As I said above, you'll go no where with this method.
So I reject any approximation & speculative methods. All of typical methods are problematic, including da famous Euler's identity.
I hope Jack won't repeat the same question again.  8)
One radian is a very simple concept.  It’s the angle that gives you an arc length on a circle equal to radius of that circle.  If you’re “maths expert” finds that confusing then you need to find a new expert.  Real mathematicians prefer radians because they simplify calculations.

How simple or difficult it may be is irrelevant.  If you can’t use phew to find one radian (and we already know you can't) then it’s just another in a long line of real world applications that phew can’t handle.  And since it has yet to work in a single real world application, phew is clearly WRONG.

Mike
Logged
Since it costs 2.72¢ to produce a penny, putting in your 2¢ if really worth 5.44¢.
*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157
« Reply #183 on: September 28, 2018, 03:14:06 AM »
Quote from: Danang on September 28, 2018, 01:46:46 AM
A maths expert said "radian is confusing".
Firstly, BS!
Secondly, who cares?
That is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It doesn't magically negate pi.

Quote from: Danang on September 28, 2018, 01:46:46 AM
I said above, you'll go no where with this method.
And that is no better than simply saying you're wrong.
You need to point out exactly what point you disagree with and explain why.

Quote from: Danang on September 28, 2018, 01:46:46 AM
So I reject any approximation & speculative methods.
So you reject direct measurement.
Good. Instead we can focus on other methods which place definitive upper and lower bounds as I did.

Now, can you state what point you disagree with and why?
If not, admit pi is correct or remain silent.
Logged
?

frenat

  • 3752
  • +0/-2
Re: Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157
« Reply #184 on: September 28, 2018, 03:54:43 AM »
Quote from: Danang on September 27, 2018, 07:32:33 PM
I think frenat needs to improve his rhetoric. Learning from Mike is okay. ~
When you stop trolling I'll stop calling you a troll.

And for the record, I didn't "learn from Mike". I called you a troll BEFORE him. Do actions in chronological order confuse you?
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45100
  • +87/-125
Re: Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157
« Reply #185 on: September 28, 2018, 07:11:30 AM »
Quote from: Danang on September 28, 2018, 12:11:41 AM
As usual, supposing you measure D & C with the right precision, you'll fine D times 3.17157 will be C.
You don't say.  Well, I just measured the diameter of a CD and got exactly 120 mm.  I then rolled the CD along a sheet of 10mm grid paper and measured a circumference of 377mm.  What's really interesting is that when you divide 377mm by 120mm you get 3.1416667 which is very close to the 3.14159 value of pi.  Phew says that the circumference should have been 380mm.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2018, 07:13:16 AM by markjo »
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
*

Danang

  • 5990
  • +28/-16
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157
« Reply #186 on: September 29, 2018, 02:54:55 AM »
Keep calm, "TRY THIS AT HOME"  8)
Logged
• South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/ ✌
*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157
« Reply #187 on: September 29, 2018, 04:25:38 AM »
Quote from: Danang on September 29, 2018, 02:54:55 AM
Keep calm, "TRY THIS AT HOME"  8)
I did, I got 3.125, which agrees with pi when the error is taken into account, but not your BS.

Now point do you disagree with?
You need to specify exactly which one and why.
Logged
*

MicroBeta

  • 2490
  • +1/-0
Re: Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157
« Reply #188 on: September 29, 2018, 06:06:47 AM »
Quote from: Danang on September 29, 2018, 02:54:55 AM
Keep calm, "TRY THIS AT HOME"  8)
I did and I get 3.14167...rock solid proof that your are wrong.

Mike
Logged
Since it costs 2.72¢ to produce a penny, putting in your 2¢ if really worth 5.44¢.
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45100
  • +87/-125
Re: Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157
« Reply #189 on: September 29, 2018, 11:40:54 AM »
Quote from: Danang on September 29, 2018, 02:54:55 AM
Keep calm, "TRY THIS AT HOME"  8)
Well, it looks like 3 of us did and showed that phew is as big a pile of manure as the name suggests.
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • +2/-2
  • I am car!
Re: Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157
« Reply #190 on: September 29, 2018, 01:48:59 PM »
Make it 4, I used calipers and got exactly what markjo got, 12 cm. The actual circumference of a standard CD is 37.7 (377 mm).

https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/FSMQ%20Circle%20matching%20cards.pdf
Logged
*

Danang

  • 5990
  • +28/-16
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157
« Reply #191 on: September 30, 2018, 02:56:11 AM »


Let's figure out how to form a 15° arch
from its diagonal?
What length should the diagonal get added to form a 15° arch?

Additional length = (Pi/4/3) - √[(sin30)²+(1-cos30)²]*100cm
=26.1799 cm - 26.1052 cm
=0.0746 cm = 7.46 micro.
So the diagonal of ((( 26.1052 CM ))) NEEDS ONLY ((( 7.46 micrometer ))) or 0.746 milimeter to form a 15° arch length  :o
It even ain't reach 1 MILIMETER.
Are you kidding??  :o

For Phew/4/3, to form such an arch length it takes an additional ((( 0.3245 cm ))) or 3.245 milimeter. It's surely pretty visible, and of course *no kidding* ;D
« Last Edit: September 30, 2018, 03:03:15 AM by Danang »
Logged
• South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/ ✌
*

Danang

  • 5990
  • +28/-16
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157
« Reply #192 on: September 30, 2018, 03:00:07 AM »
Thank you Stash. Make sure the measurement is right.  8)

And the rest:
Keep calm, no bollock please  8)
Logged
• South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/ ✌
*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157
« Reply #193 on: September 30, 2018, 03:15:35 AM »
Quote from: Danang on September 30, 2018, 02:56:11 AM
Let's figure out how to form a 15° arch
Let's not.
Let's instead discuss the derivation I provided.
It shows the value of pi, placing limits on it.
What point do you disagree with.

Quote from: Danang on September 30, 2018, 02:56:11 AM
from its diagonal?
Only if you use an infinite series to converge to the arc by repeatedly breaking that arc into smaller and smaller lines. But you don't want that.

Quote from: Danang on September 30, 2018, 02:56:11 AM
Are you kidding??  :o
Again, you not liking how close the arc is to the diagonal just shows you don't like reality.
It doesn't magically make it wrong.
What you are doing is no better than claiming something like:
Quote
IT ONLY TAKES AN EXTRA 3.5 mm? THAT"S GARBAGE!! SURELY IT SHOULD TAKE AN EXTRA 10 M!!!
It is just pathetic, childish crap.

Quote from: Danang on September 30, 2018, 03:00:07 AM
no bollock please
You provide enough bollock for everyone.

An example of that is this pile of crap:
Quote from: Danang on September 30, 2018, 02:56:11 AM
What length should the diagonal get added to form a 15° arch?
Additional length = (Pi/4/3) - √[(sin30)²+(1-cos30)²]*100cm
Rather than writing it sensibly as pi/12, which is equivalent to 15 degrees, you instead stick in pi/4/3.
And rather than just leave it as a simple number, you felt the need to multiply by 100cm for no reason at all, but only showed you doing that to one side.
Let's skip that garbage shall we?
That means the arc length is (not just allegedly, but IS!) 0.26179938779

Then you tried computing the diagonal, but shoved in 30 degrees instead of 15. Why was that?
But then magically you still got the correct answer.
0.26105238444010
As a ratio, that is 0.997146657

You then claim more nonsense of that difference being clearly visible but it isn't.
To try and back this up you use an image where you aren't even drawing it in properly.
Here is what it should have looked like:

Not really any big difference is there?

Now which of the 60 points do you disagree with and why?
Unless you can show a problem with one of these points you have no argument and no justification for any of your nonsense.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2018, 03:39:47 AM by JackBlack »
Logged
*

Danang

  • 5990
  • +28/-16
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157
« Reply #194 on: September 30, 2018, 03:24:47 AM »
"IT ONLY TAKES AN EXTRA 3.5 mm? THAT"S GARBAGE!! SURELY IT SHOULD TAKE AN EXTRA 10 M!!!"

 :o

I never posted such thing.
Logged
• South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/ ✌
*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157
« Reply #195 on: September 30, 2018, 03:39:03 AM »
Quote from: Danang on September 30, 2018, 03:24:47 AM
I never posted such thing.
No, you didn't post that directly, but that is what your objection amounts to. You don't like just how small the difference is. You demand it should be bigger with no justification at all.
That is no better than just blindly asserting the difference should be at least 10 m.
It isn't based upon any rational argument and the math shows it is wrong.

Now, which of the 60 points do you disagree with?
Remember, until you can show a problem with one, phew remains BS and pi remains correct.
Logged
*

Danang

  • 5990
  • +28/-16
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157
« Reply #196 on: September 30, 2018, 03:43:23 AM »
What about the "neck"?
Neck= 100cm - 100cm*√[ 1² -(0.261052:2)² ] =0.8555 cm or 8.555 milimeter.

HOW COME AN ADDITIONAL LENGTH OF 0.746 milimeter results 8.555 milimeter of NECK??
Logged
• South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/ ✌
*

Danang

  • 5990
  • +28/-16
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157
« Reply #197 on: September 30, 2018, 03:45:42 AM »
"Now, which of the 60 points do you disagree with?"

If you concluded pi, all of 60 points will be wrong.
Logged
• South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/ ✌
*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157
« Reply #198 on: September 30, 2018, 03:55:48 AM »
Quote from: Danang on September 30, 2018, 03:43:23 AM
What about the "neck"?
Neck= 100cm - 100cm*√[ 1² -(0.261052:2)² ] =0.8555 cm or 8.555 milimeter.
This is another example of your pathetic garbage. You make no indication of what this magical neck is supposed to be, and instead just assert it as if it is some problem.

Quit the pathetic childish BS and deal with the derivation of pi which shows you to be completely wrong.

Quote from: Danang on September 30, 2018, 03:45:42 AM
If you concluded pi, all of 60 points will be wrong.
No they wouldn't.
They would all be correct.
If it concluded PHEW, then at least 1 of the points will be wrong.
All it takes for a conclusion to an argument or proof to be wrong is a single point.
Anything built from a false premise or illogical conclusion can be wrong.

But that means you disagree with every point and now need to explain why one by one.
Lets start with point 1.
What do you find wrong with this:
Quote
1 - First we define π as C/D.
You don't define pi as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter?
If not, then what do you define it as?

Why are you objecting to its definition as you aren't even focusing on what it is?
That would be akin to saying pi shouldn't be 3.14... it should be 2.718 or 1.618.

Or do you accept that point 1 is correct?
Logged
*

MicroBeta

  • 2490
  • +1/-0
Re: Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157
« Reply #199 on: September 30, 2018, 04:52:59 AM »
Quote from: Danang on September 30, 2018, 02:56:11 AM
<sniped image>

Let's figure out how to form a 15° arch
from its diagonal?
What length should the diagonal get added to form a 15° arch?

Additional length = (Pi/4/3) - √[(sin30)²+(1-cos30)²]*100cm
=26.1799 cm - 26.1052 cm
=0.0746 cm = 7.46 micro.
So the diagonal of ((( 26.1052 CM ))) NEEDS ONLY ((( 7.46 micrometer ))) or 0.746 milimeter to form a 15° arch length  :o
It even ain't reach 1 MILIMETER.
Are you kidding??  :o

For Phew/4/3, to form such an arch length it takes an additional ((( 0.3245 cm ))) or 3.245 milimeter. It's surely pretty visible, and of course *no kidding* ;D
There you go with bullshit calculations.  Why do you need to make simple equations seem more complicated than they really are...and then unnecessarily use a scalar to make it more obfuscated.  It’s almost as if you’re trying to muddy the waters.  I wonder why that is.  What are you trying to hide?

You go through all weird calculations and yet still won’t answer the basic questions posted to you.  You avoid them because you know phew will get the wrong answer.  Everybody knows it.

I’ll try again with simple questions. 

What’s the arc length of 1 radian and a semi-circle using phew?
Show that the Cos(60°)=0.5 using phew.

If you’re confident in phew you can answer these questions.  If you’re not confident you’ll ignore the questions and everyone will know phew doesn’t work.

Mike
Logged
Since it costs 2.72¢ to produce a penny, putting in your 2¢ if really worth 5.44¢.
*

Danang

  • 5990
  • +28/-16
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157
« Reply #200 on: September 30, 2018, 06:53:14 AM »
No need to go random way.
Phew is Special :')
Logged
• South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/ ✌
?

Alien

  • 37
  • +0/-0
Re: Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157
« Reply #201 on: September 30, 2018, 08:20:02 AM »
I can see something totally new for me here.

What is this 3.17157 supposed to be? A different approximate value for pi?

There are dozens of approximate methods to compute pi, but none of them give this 3.17157. They all give 3.14159.........
If one does not want to spend time in manual calculations, with a simple pocket calculator, where the inverse sine function is stored as power series, try to compute [ 2 * invsin (1)].
If you don't trust the invsin power series, try with inv cos (0).
If you don't trust the calculator at all, solve numerically the integral of an arc length for a quarter-circle. I bet you find something like 3.14159.
 8)
Logged
*

MicroBeta

  • 2490
  • +1/-0
Re: Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157
« Reply #202 on: September 30, 2018, 10:44:27 AM »
Quote from: Danang on September 30, 2018, 06:53:14 AM
No need to go random way.
Phew is Special :')

Those numbers, while interesting, don't mean anything.  Please how you got the values for "c", "d", and "e".  What I'm seeing there doesn't make any sense and you don't derive where they came from so until you do it's nothing but a big steaming pile-o-poo.

Nice try.

Mike
Logged
Since it costs 2.72¢ to produce a penny, putting in your 2¢ if really worth 5.44¢.
*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157
« Reply #203 on: September 30, 2018, 02:18:01 PM »
Quote from: Danang on September 30, 2018, 06:53:14 AM
No need to go random way.
That's right. We already have pi, something from a clear methodical way, with no need for any of your random nonsense.

Your picture doesn't show how to calculate pi. It shows random garbage.
You have no justification for why pi should be dependent upon any of that. Why use sqrt(2) and sqrt(2)/2? Why should that sum equal pi?
It is just throwing together a bunch of random numbers without any justification at all.

Meanwhile, I provided a derivation which started with the definition of pi, going through many logical steps to show what the value of pi is.
You claimed every step was wrong, so now explain why each step is wrong, starting with step 1, the definition of pi.

If you can't do that, get lost.
Logged
*

Danang

  • 5990
  • +28/-16
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157
« Reply #204 on: October 01, 2018, 02:54:57 AM »
Quote from: Alien on September 30, 2018, 08:20:02 AM
I can see something totally new for me here.

What is this 3.17157 supposed to be? A different approximate value for pi?

There are dozens of approximate methods to compute pi, but none of them give this 3.17157. They all give 3.14159.........
If one does not want to spend time in manual calculations, with a simple pocket calculator, where the inverse sine function is stored as power series, try to compute [ 2 * invsin (1)].
If you don't trust the invsin power series, try with inv cos (0).
If you don't trust the calculator at all, solve numerically the integral of an arc length for a quarter-circle. I bet you find something like 3.14159.
 8)

I'm so sorry, lady.. I can't leave ma Phew  ;)
Logged
• South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/ ✌
*

Danang

  • 5990
  • +28/-16
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157
« Reply #205 on: October 01, 2018, 03:01:26 AM »
Quote from: MicroBeta on September 30, 2018, 10:44:27 AM
Quote from: Danang on September 30, 2018, 06:53:14 AM
No need to go random way.
Phew is Special :')

interesting

Everybody... let's clap our hands for Mike has repented and converted into the follower of Phew!  8)
Logged
• South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/ ✌
*

Danang

  • 5990
  • +28/-16
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157
« Reply #206 on: October 01, 2018, 03:02:37 AM »
Quote from: JackBlack on September 30, 2018, 02:18:01 PM
Quote from: Danang on September 30, 2018, 06:53:14 AM
No need to go random way.
That's right. We already have pi, something from a clear methodical way, with no need for any of your random nonsense.

Your picture doesn't show how to calculate pi. It shows random garbage.
You have no justification for why pi should be dependent upon any of that. Why use sqrt(2) and sqrt(2)/2? Why should that sum equal pi?
It is just throwing together a bunch of random numbers without any justification at all.

Meanwhile, I provided a derivation which started with the definition of pi, going through many logical steps to show what the value of pi is.
You claimed every step was wrong, so now explain why each step is wrong, starting with step 1, the definition of pi.

If you can't do that, get lost.

Scroll down  8)
Logged
• South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/ ✌
*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157
« Reply #207 on: October 01, 2018, 04:31:31 AM »
Quote from: Danang on October 01, 2018, 03:01:26 AM
[blatant lie removed]
has repented and converted into the follower of Phew!
Do you seriously expect anyone to be stupid enough to believe your nonsense?

Quote from: Danang on October 01, 2018, 03:02:37 AM
Scroll down  8)
To see your continued inability to respond?

Like I said, explain exactly what point you disagree with and why, or get lost.
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45100
  • +87/-125
Re: Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157
« Reply #208 on: October 01, 2018, 07:02:52 AM »
Quote from: Danang on October 01, 2018, 02:54:57 AM
Quote from: Alien on September 30, 2018, 08:20:02 AM
I can see something totally new for me here.

What is this 3.17157 supposed to be? A different approximate value for pi?

There are dozens of approximate methods to compute pi, but none of them give this 3.17157. They all give 3.14159.........
If one does not want to spend time in manual calculations, with a simple pocket calculator, where the inverse sine function is stored as power series, try to compute [ 2 * invsin (1)].
If you don't trust the invsin power series, try with inv cos (0).
If you don't trust the calculator at all, solve numerically the integral of an arc length for a quarter-circle. I bet you find something like 3.14159.
 8)

I'm so sorry, lady.. I can't leave ma Phew  ;)
You should before Phew breaks your heart.
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
*

MicroBeta

  • 2490
  • +1/-0
Re: Tangent & C Relation: 3.14159 vs Phew's 3.17157
« Reply #209 on: October 01, 2018, 10:13:48 AM »
Quote from: Danang on October 01, 2018, 03:01:26 AM
Quote from: MicroBeta on September 30, 2018, 10:44:27 AM
Quote from: Danang on September 30, 2018, 06:53:14 AM
No need to go random way.
Phew is Special :')

interesting

Everybody... let's clap our hands for Mike has repented and converted into the follower of Phew!  8)
If phew was correct then you’d have a value to answer for every question posted to you. 

Well...you haven’t answered a single one which proves you finally realized your silly little number is wrong.

Thanks for finally admitting defeat.  Pi is proven and phew is the tool of trolls.

Mike
Logged
Since it costs 2.72¢ to produce a penny, putting in your 2¢ if really worth 5.44¢.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8   Go Up
« previous next »