Who will cry over this debanking about pi??

  • 132 Replies
  • 1364 Views
*

Danang

  • 2893
  • Phew FE Map is under construction. #Disclaimer
Re: Who will cry over this debanking about pi??
« Reply #90 on: July 08, 2019, 08:40:59 PM »
IF a calculated area is resulted from substraction of minor areas

THEREFORE
the actual area is *not* the calculated area.

IF pi is the calulated area

THEREFORE
pi is wrong

All it means is that π is not exactly the value calculated but the calculated value gets closer and closer to the exact value of π as more sides are used.

Your method is only very approximate and cannot easily be improved.

But what you have forgotten is that Archimedes proved that 223/71 < π < 22/7 or 3.1408 < π < 3.1429).

So while he did not find an exact value of π he found upper and lower bounds to π.

And these can easily be brought closer by using the same method but with more and more sides. But that method is not used anymore because it takes too many sides to calculate π to extreme accuracies.

And, of course, the exact value of π can never by found because it is a trancendental number

This pi series goes bigger total extent as the angles goes smaller.
Unfortunately pi method assumes that this series goes to the right decimals after 3.1 something.
Are you not consider the growing n while the angles grow smaller?

For the equilibrium 0.01į angles you've got 18,000 sectors for area caculation, and 36,000 sectors for circumference calculation.
n will be followed by the same n of abandoned 18,000 areas or 36,000 abandobed length differences (arc lengths minus triangle base lengths).

As shown at the previous video, phew method calculates with definite 'hint' numbers within a definite diagram. Therefore phew is fragrant :')
« Last Edit: July 08, 2019, 09:17:45 PM by Danang »
TRY: Phew = 3.17157 and (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE AKA Phew FE ~


*

Danang

  • 2893
  • Phew FE Map is under construction. #Disclaimer
Re: Who will cry over this debanking about pi??
« Reply #91 on: July 08, 2019, 08:50:55 PM »
For pi series, 22/7 AKA 3.142857 is out of range. There will never be figure at 3rd decimal exceeding 1.  That number was made up. Even though it's better in approaching the actual C/D AKA actual circle area AKA Phew.
TRY: Phew = 3.17157 and (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE AKA Phew FE ~


*

rabinoz

  • 21162
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Who will cry over this debanking about pi??
« Reply #92 on: July 08, 2019, 08:54:26 PM »
IF a calculated area is resulted from substraction of minor areas

THEREFORE
the actual area is *not* the calculated area.

IF pi is the calulated area

THEREFORE
pi is wrong

All it means is that π is not exactly the value calculated but the calculated value gets closer and closer to the exact value of π as more sides are used.

Your method is only very approximate and cannot easily be improved.

But what you have forgotten is that Archimedes proved that 223/71 < π < 22/7 or 3.1408 < π < 3.1429).

So while he did not find an exact value of π he found upper and lower bounds to π.

And these can easily be brought closer by using the same method but with more and more sides. But that method is not used anymore because it takes too many sides to calculate π to extreme accuracies.

And, of course, the exact value of π can never by found because it is a trancendental number
This pi series goes bigger total extent as the angles goes smaller.
Unfortunately pi method assumes that this series goes to the right decimals after 3.1 something.
Are you not consider the growing n while the angles grow smaller?
Even the "growing π" assymptotically approaches the correct value.

But the Archimedes method calculates two values, one less than the exact value of π and the other greater than th exact value so you alway know that π is between those vaues.

So all the rest of what you say does not come into it - you know that π lies between those two values.

*

sokarul

  • 15670
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Who will cry over this debanking about pi??
« Reply #93 on: July 09, 2019, 06:49:02 PM »
The five decimals --> .14159, at least, will not change. No significant progress will occur afterwards.
That's plenty accurate for most practical purposes and still 4 decimal places more accurate then phew.

By reality pi is wrong. If you said "plenty accurate for most practical purposes", the question are:
Which ones are those?
Pretty much all of them.  It isn't unusual for super-precision machine tools to cut parts to within a few millionths of an inch.  If pi is good enough for super-precise machine tools, then it's good enough for me.

How is the mechanism of the cutting?
Why do engineers not use calculus?
Look up metrology.
Itís not just engineers. There is a whole field of measuring things.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

Danang

  • 2893
  • Phew FE Map is under construction. #Disclaimer
Re: Who will cry over this debanking about pi??
« Reply #94 on: July 09, 2019, 07:59:41 PM »
IF a calculated area is resulted from substraction of minor areas

THEREFORE
the actual area is *not* the calculated area.

IF pi is the calulated area

THEREFORE
pi is wrong

All it means is that π is not exactly the value calculated but the calculated value gets closer and closer to the exact value of π as more sides are used.

Your method is only very approximate and cannot easily be improved.

But what you have forgotten is that Archimedes proved that 223/71 < π < 22/7 or 3.1408 < π < 3.1429).

So while he did not find an exact value of π he found upper and lower bounds to π.

And these can easily be brought closer by using the same method but with more and more sides. But that method is not used anymore because it takes too many sides to calculate π to extreme accuracies.

And, of course, the exact value of π can never by found because it is a trancendental number
This pi series goes bigger total extent as the angles goes smaller.
Unfortunately pi method assumes that this series goes to the right decimals after 3.1 something.
Are you not consider the growing n while the angles grow smaller?
Even the "growing π" assymptotically approaches the correct value.

But the Archimedes method calculates two values, one less than the exact value of π and the other greater than th exact value so you alway know that π is between those vaues.

So all the rest of what you say does not come into it - you know that π lies between those two values.

And the maximum value? How did Archimedes define it?

By the way you suggested me to write a journal. Can you please give the link? How much is the payment for the journal?
TRY: Phew = 3.17157 and (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE AKA Phew FE ~


*

Danang

  • 2893
  • Phew FE Map is under construction. #Disclaimer
Re: Who will cry over this debanking about pi??
« Reply #95 on: July 09, 2019, 08:01:23 PM »
The five decimals --> .14159, at least, will not change. No significant progress will occur afterwards.
That's plenty accurate for most practical purposes and still 4 decimal places more accurate then phew.

By reality pi is wrong. If you said "plenty accurate for most practical purposes", the question are:
Which ones are those?
Pretty much all of them.  It isn't unusual for super-precision machine tools to cut parts to within a few millionths of an inch.  If pi is good enough for super-precise machine tools, then it's good enough for me.

How is the mechanism of the cutting?
Why do engineers not use calculus?
Look up metrology.
Itís not just engineers. There is a whole field of measuring things.

Engineers don't use calculus. Why pi method use calculus?
TRY: Phew = 3.17157 and (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE AKA Phew FE ~


*

Danang

  • 2893
  • Phew FE Map is under construction. #Disclaimer
Re: Who will cry over this debanking about pi??
« Reply #96 on: July 09, 2019, 08:40:15 PM »
Pi always right IF the tape is TILTED.



8)
TRY: Phew = 3.17157 and (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE AKA Phew FE ~


Re: Who will cry over this debanking about pi??
« Reply #97 on: July 10, 2019, 02:18:03 AM »
Engineers do use calculus.
Thats why we took at least two levels of it in university.
Thats why d = vt + 0.5 at^2. and not simply d proportional vt.

*

Danang

  • 2893
  • Phew FE Map is under construction. #Disclaimer
Re: Who will cry over this debanking about pi??
« Reply #98 on: July 12, 2019, 05:16:05 PM »
Engineers do use calculus.
Thats why we took at least two levels of it in university.
Thats why d = vt + 0.5 at^2. and not simply d proportional vt.

Engineers use calculus when they were still students to pass the school exam.
TRY: Phew = 3.17157 and (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE AKA Phew FE ~


*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 37691
Re: Who will cry over this debanking about pi??
« Reply #99 on: July 12, 2019, 05:38:43 PM »
Engineers do use calculus.
Thats why we took at least two levels of it in university.
Thats why d = vt + 0.5 at^2. and not simply d proportional vt.

Engineers use calculus when they were still students to pass the school exam.
When did you ever use calculus?
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.

*

rabinoz

  • 21162
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Who will cry over this debanking about pi??
« Reply #100 on: July 12, 2019, 09:39:12 PM »
Engineers use calculus when they were still students to pass the school exam.
And engineers use calculus a great deal in their daily work.
                              Signed: RABinOZ who did Electrical Engineer for decades.
Not that I was very good at more complex calculus.

*

Danang

  • 2893
  • Phew FE Map is under construction. #Disclaimer
Re: Who will cry over this debanking about pi??
« Reply #101 on: July 13, 2019, 12:13:32 AM »
Engineers do use calculus.
Thats why we took at least two levels of it in university.
Thats why d = vt + 0.5 at^2. and not simply d proportional vt.

Engineers use calculus when they were still students to pass the school exam.
When did you ever use calculus?
As much as those engineers: when I was at school.
TRY: Phew = 3.17157 and (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE AKA Phew FE ~


*

Danang

  • 2893
  • Phew FE Map is under construction. #Disclaimer
Re: Who will cry over this debanking about pi??
« Reply #102 on: July 13, 2019, 12:14:37 AM »
Engineers use calculus when they were still students to pass the school exam.
And engineers use calculus a great deal in their daily work.
                              Signed: RABinOZ who did Electrical Engineer for decades.
Not that I was very good at more complex calculus.

https://gineersnow.com/engineering/engineers-dont-use-calculus-work-study
TRY: Phew = 3.17157 and (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE AKA Phew FE ~


*

rabinoz

  • 21162
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Who will cry over this debanking about pi??
« Reply #103 on: July 13, 2019, 01:04:29 AM »
Engineers use calculus when they were still students to pass the school exam.
And engineers use calculus a great deal in their daily work.
                              Signed: RABinOZ who did Electrical Engineer for decades.
Not that I was very good at more complex calculus.
https://gineersnow.com/engineering/engineers-dont-use-calculus-work-study
Did you notice the title? Most Engineers Donít Use Calculus at Work, So Why Study?

*

Danang

  • 2893
  • Phew FE Map is under construction. #Disclaimer
Re: Who will cry over this debanking about pi??
« Reply #104 on: July 13, 2019, 02:08:55 AM »
Engineers use calculus when they were still students to pass the school exam.
And engineers use calculus a great deal in their daily work.
                              Signed: RABinOZ who did Electrical Engineer for decades.
Not that I was very good at more complex calculus.
https://gineersnow.com/engineering/engineers-dont-use-calculus-work-study
Did you notice the title? Most Engineers Donít Use Calculus at Work, So Why Study?

"engineers use calculus a great deal in their daily work."
                              Signed: RABinOZ who did Electrical Engineer for decades.
TRY: Phew = 3.17157 and (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE AKA Phew FE ~


*

Danang

  • 2893
  • Phew FE Map is under construction. #Disclaimer
Re: Who will cry over this debanking about pi??
« Reply #105 on: July 13, 2019, 02:10:30 AM »
Back to the topic: Phew
Any objection?
TRY: Phew = 3.17157 and (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE AKA Phew FE ~


*

rabinoz

  • 21162
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Who will cry over this debanking about pi??
« Reply #106 on: July 13, 2019, 02:35:53 AM »
Back to the topic: Phew
Any objection?
Yes, Phew :( stinks and smells sweet :-* and is very handsome :).

Re: Who will cry over this debanking about pi??
« Reply #107 on: July 13, 2019, 04:19:08 AM »
Structural engineers use it constantly.
Ever see a load-shear and then a moment line diagram?


*

rabinoz

  • 21162
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Who will cry over this debanking about pi??
« Reply #108 on: July 13, 2019, 05:53:43 AM »
Structural engineers use it constantly.
Ever see a load-shear and then a moment line diagram?
I was a mere Electrical one but I had to deal with conversions of frequency in Hz to frequency in radians/second very often so 2 π cropped up all the time.

So, please find a polite way to tell Danang to dump his smellie Phew where no one will ever see it again!

Re: Who will cry over this debanking about pi??
« Reply #109 on: July 13, 2019, 08:26:57 AM »
Back to the topic: Phew
Any objection?

I have no objection to phew. I mean, it's a number. How can one object to a number? Does anyone seriously object to the number 7? Or 4397100.4? But honestly, you have not convinced me that C/D of a perfect circle on a Euclidian plane is equal to phew rather than pi. If the circle is not perfect, or it is on a surface other than a perfect Euclidian plane, then C/D could be pretty much anything. The Earth is not perfectly flat since there are mountains and hills and holes in the ground, so an actual circle drawn on the Earth doesn't tell us anything. Even flat water has enough ripples to put a circle out of round. So C/D probably has to be determined by calculation from basic principles, rather than measured empirically.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 37691
Re: Who will cry over this debanking about pi??
« Reply #110 on: July 13, 2019, 09:57:50 AM »
Back to the topic: Phew
Any objection?
Phew is a fine number, if you're calculating umbrellas. 

Anything else?  Not so much.
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.

Re: Who will cry over this debanking about pi??
« Reply #111 on: July 13, 2019, 11:44:52 AM »
Back to the topic: Phew
Any objection?

I have no objection to phew. I mean, it's a number. How can one object to a number? Does anyone seriously object to the number 7? Or 4397100.4? But honestly, you have not convinced me that C/D of a perfect circle on a Euclidian plane is equal to phew rather than pi. If the circle is not perfect, or it is on a surface other than a perfect Euclidian plane, then C/D could be pretty much anything. The Earth is not perfectly flat since there are mountains and hills and holes in the ground, so an actual circle drawn on the Earth doesn't tell us anything. Even flat water has enough ripples to put a circle out of round. So C/D probably has to be determined by calculation from basic principles, rather than measured empirically.


13
4 (in cantonese)

*

Danang

  • 2893
  • Phew FE Map is under construction. #Disclaimer
Re: Who will cry over this debanking about pi??
« Reply #112 on: July 14, 2019, 01:45:03 AM »
Back to the topic: Phew
Any objection?
Phew is a fine number, if you're calculating umbrellas. 

Anything else?  Not so much.

For me as a non native speaker, that doesn't know slangs or details in English, your statement seems to have a positive meaning. Thank you.

If my interpretation is wrong, please tell me why you object phew with more details.

In case you're right perhaps Rabinoz will be happy.
So far I wish I could make Rabinoz happy, but what could I do, nobody can change the phew's fragrance. 8)
TRY: Phew = 3.17157 and (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE AKA Phew FE ~


*

Danang

  • 2893
  • Phew FE Map is under construction. #Disclaimer
Re: Who will cry over this debanking about pi??
« Reply #113 on: July 14, 2019, 01:49:36 AM »
Back to the topic: Phew
Any objection?

I have no objection to phew. I mean, it's a number. How can one object to a number? Does anyone seriously object to the number 7? Or 4397100.4? But honestly, you have not convinced me that C/D of a perfect circle on a Euclidian plane is equal to phew rather than pi. If the circle is not perfect, or it is on a surface other than a perfect Euclidian plane, then C/D could be pretty much anything. The Earth is not perfectly flat since there are mountains and hills and holes in the ground, so an actual circle drawn on the Earth doesn't tell us anything. Even flat water has enough ripples to put a circle out of round. So C/D probably has to be determined by calculation from basic principles, rather than measured empirically.

So.. although not perfect, experiment will lead you to phew. Just to confirm either the magnitude of phew and the accuracy of the phew's formulas.
TRY: Phew = 3.17157 and (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE AKA Phew FE ~


*

Danang

  • 2893
  • Phew FE Map is under construction. #Disclaimer
Re: Who will cry over this debanking about pi??
« Reply #114 on: July 14, 2019, 01:52:26 AM »
Structural engineers use it constantly.
Ever see a load-shear and then a moment line diagram?
I was a mere Electrical one but I had to deal with conversions of frequency in Hz to frequency in radians/second very often so 2 π cropped up all the time.

So, please find a polite way to tell Danang to dump his smellie Phew where no one will ever see it again!

Back to the topic: Phew
Any objection?
Phew is a fine number, if you're calculating umbrellas. 

Anything else?  Not so much.

For me as a non native speaker, that doesn't know slangs or details in English, your statement seems to have a positive meaning. Thank you.

If my interpretation is wrong, please tell me why you object phew with more details.

In case you're right perhaps Rabinoz will be happy.
So far I wish I could make Rabinoz happy, but what could I do, nobody can change the phew's fragrance. 8)
TRY: Phew = 3.17157 and (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE AKA Phew FE ~


*

sokarul

  • 15670
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Who will cry over this debanking about pi??
« Reply #115 on: July 14, 2019, 04:58:57 AM »
Have you made a video where you actually show the measurements? Have you upgraded  your tools to get better measurements?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

Danang

  • 2893
  • Phew FE Map is under construction. #Disclaimer
Re: Who will cry over this debanking about pi??
« Reply #116 on: July 14, 2019, 05:44:45 AM »
Have you made a video where you actually show the measurements? Have you upgraded  your tools to get better measurements?

Should I make a similar video again? Why not asking the other people to verify my phew? Let them post the result at this thread. Or, what about your experiment?
If you use a tape and a cylinder, you've used the best tools. So far I didn't see other better tools than tape and cylinder.
TRY: Phew = 3.17157 and (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE AKA Phew FE ~


Re: Who will cry over this debanking about pi??
« Reply #117 on: July 14, 2019, 08:56:58 AM »
Back to the topic: Phew
Any objection?

I have no objection to phew. I mean, it's a number. How can one object to a number? Does anyone seriously object to the number 7? Or 4397100.4? But honestly, you have not convinced me that C/D of a perfect circle on a Euclidian plane is equal to phew rather than pi. If the circle is not perfect, or it is on a surface other than a perfect Euclidian plane, then C/D could be pretty much anything. The Earth is not perfectly flat since there are mountains and hills and holes in the ground, so an actual circle drawn on the Earth doesn't tell us anything. Even flat water has enough ripples to put a circle out of round. So C/D probably has to be determined by calculation from basic principles, rather than measured empirically.

So.. although not perfect, experiment will lead you to phew. Just to confirm either the magnitude of phew and the accuracy of the phew's formulas.

I am neither a good experimentalist nor a mathematician. Experiment would require being able to draw a perfect circle on a perfectly flat surface and make measurements accurate to at least four significant figures. Maybe five, because the error bars grow as you add more and more segments or even if you just multiply the result from measuring one segment. There may be instruments capable of this, but all I have is a tape measure. So experiment is out for me.

As for calculation, there was a time, when I was in my 20's, when I was good at math. But I'm an old man now and my brain is not as sharp as it was, and the sort of math needed to calculate C/D from first principles is beyond me. But I have known mathematicians and math teachers, and you are the first person I've ever heard of who disputes the conventional value. So, although I cannot state on my own authority that you are wrong, I have to say that you have not convinced me that phew, rather than pi, is the value of C/D for a perfect circle on a flat Euclidian plane.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 37691
Re: Who will cry over this debanking about pi??
« Reply #118 on: July 14, 2019, 09:07:07 AM »
Back to the topic: Phew
Any objection?
Phew is a fine number, if you're calculating umbrellas. 

Anything else?  Not so much.

For me as a non native speaker, that doesn't know slangs or details in English, your statement seems to have a positive meaning. Thank you.

If my interpretation is wrong, please tell me why you object phew with more details.
Your interpretation is half right.  Phew is good if you're calculating umbrellas.  Phew is bad if you're calculating anything else.
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.

Re: Who will cry over this debanking about pi??
« Reply #119 on: July 14, 2019, 06:44:06 PM »
Have you made a video where you actually show the measurements? Have you upgraded  your tools to get better measurements?

Hr did.
It was pretty bad (error-wise).
Curiosererrer fully corrected it.
Danssng has ignored and carried on.