H= pi/sqrt{pi*2}

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Jason.Marshall, Dec 18, 2014.

  1. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    (H*r)^2*2 =A

    x/H= 180/pi
    x/H*180=A
    sqrt{x/H*180}^2= Pi *r^2
    Pi*r^2=(H*r)^2*2
    pi=180/sqrt{x/H*180}

    play around with these formulas see what you get?
    "Quadrature of a circle for radius 180/pi"
    Solve for x,H,pi,r,A
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2014
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    You are beginning to sound like a cracked record. We've had all this before, haven't we?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    Yes, but lighting up brother just have some fun with it you can always expand on things when you get creative you notice relationships that may have not have been obvious at first glance. I put this here to get feedback on multiply perspectives I only discovered these relationships in this form a few days ago so its still quite interesting to me. Plus am not sure if anyone even paid attention to my other post no one replied to the math anyways other than pointing out facts that did not directly impact the main importance of what I was trying to illustrate, but good to know at least more of you noticed than I would of anticipated. Plus its my personal discovery so it would be normal for me to try and learn as much about it as possible. I choose the share my work here in its premature state take that as a sign of respect I must value the opinions of many here on this site that posses excellent skills in mathematical comprehension.
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2014
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    I've discovered that Pi^2/Pi = Pi! What does it mean?!
     
  8. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    That all depends on what you hope to accomplish. But don't be a grump sarcasm is not always satisfying when you cannot experience joy from the reason of its conception. I can tell you that "H" is important to me because I predicted it with my mathematical theory before I knew it existed, so I proved to myself I could make fully accurate predictions with my theory even without doing calculations the calculations or just done to confirm predictions.
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2014
  9. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    My theory may even lead me to a technique that will allow me to solve the "Quadrature of a circle" inside a Euclidean plane by use of a perfect circles doppelganger. This is another one of my predictions based on my mathematical theory
     
  10. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    If any circle with radius AB has the same area as a square CDEF and the midpoints of any two adjacent sides of the square can be joined by a segment GI then we know the following about ratios of lengths:

    AB : CD : GI :: 1 : √π : √(π/2)​

    If
    AB = r and H = √(π/2)​
    then it follows that
    GI = H × r​
    and
    ( H × r )² = GI²​
    while
    CD² = 2 × GI² = 2 × (H × r)² = 2 × H² × r² = 2 × (π/2) × r² = π × r² = π × AB².​

    Geometrically, there is no question about this result. Algebraically, there is no question about this result.

    But, and this is an important question for the purposes of a discussion board, why is this a statement of interest to anyone?
    The number H = √(π/2) exists, but again, why is this a statement of interest to anyone?
    These are trivial statements to people who have mastered the 2000-year-old field of Euclidean geometry or 17th century analysis or those who have been introduced to the logical foundation of the set of real numbers. As you are not one of these people, we conclude you have no reasonable basis on which to conduct a discussion.

    Further:
    H = Γ(½) × (½)^(½)​
    which might be an interesting topic of discussion if you had the background to apply the function \(f(x) = x^x \, \Gamma(x) = x^{x-1} \, x! \) but you didn't so this is just an unconnected fact and not part of any discussion.
     
  11. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    Thank you for this insight this is the reason I post here this is why I like you Rpenner. I seek only the truth and my methods maybe crude but I am satisfied with the understanding it provides me, but the best way to see the full picture is to take into account the many different point of views of objective thinking. Thanks again...and for the record I fully intent to master these mathematical disciplines you mentioned above as you probably already noticed I do not describe math in a formal way and have not formally master all of mathematical theory but I am fully aware of structures that are correct no matter if I have not located them in the formal location of mathematical theory. My personal beliefs and predictions remain important to me because in my own way I see the importance so ultimately it is my responsibility to conduct a full investigation on all predictions and or assumptions. This is also why I said it is a work in progress.
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2014
  12. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654

    This is all I can give you for now so if you can translate it into that other form above
    "H = Γ(½) × (½)^(½)" would be great and not sure if they are in relation!!

    2^p-1 Γ(p/2)Γ(p+1/2)=(H*r)sqrt{2}/r*Γ(p)... double check for errors please
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2014
  13. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Your formula lacks foundation, therefore it is wrong. You formula is not generally true, therefore it is wrong. You have not explained what p is, therefore you are wrong.

    In addition, you have not addressed the questions raised (mostly explicitly) in post #7, so you are pursuing a conversation with people on the Internet in a wrong fashion.

    The only reason to quote a whole post is to address every point in the post in one pass. But this isn't Twitter, so skilled communicators target specific points with selective quotation. They lay out their whole argument, not just a snippet or sound byte. As pointed out above, you lack the mathematical prerequisites to enter into the discussion from a position of knowledge so your abuse of mathematical notation leaves you on display as a narcissistic fool and liar.

    This forum has given you a wonderful platform to share knowledge with the world and you abuse it to share valueless and infantile displays of your arrogance and ignorance and self-aggrandizement. And to do it on the Internet under a name you won't easily be able to disavow makes it a gift that keeps on giving as this behavior will follow you around on job interviews and interactions with your peers.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2014
  14. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    I am not seeking employment I plan to retire in a year and a half from now. I cant have that ugly of a personality besides no one is perfect I only treat people how they treat me I believe and still believe my claims or correct regardless if I can explain them on a professional level or not and if I am wrong I would be happy to accept that because I seek only the truth nothing more nothing less.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2014
  15. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    This is my formula for solving the "Quadrature of a circle" sqrt {(r/4+r)^2} = sqrt{ pi*r^2}

    I used this technique solve the problem that is why "H" is important because,... r*H= r/4+r

    sqrt{(r/4+r)^2}/r= sqrt{pi}
     
  16. theorist-constant12345 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,660
    Hello Jason, you will find that you can play around with numbers , all day long, and you will always see that which looks coincidental to some bits of reality.
    I have played around with the numbers myself, including redefining the value of Pi, to form a calculation that could convert meters a second, into MPH with a very good accuracy to millionths of a decimal place.
    I can honestly tell you , that there is no need, the numeric values science already has, does not need to change in any way, it has all been proven to fit the purpose the maths was designed for. The best you can do is change the colour of the calculation, but the form can never change its values.
    You are just playing around, to get the exact same results as we presently get with present calculations, any results different to that, have no use.
     
  17. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    correction below sorry

     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2014
  18. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Excuse this off thread intrusion, but here is an alternative formula one may like and use often if visiting where quoted temperature, T, is not in the scale you are familiar with:

    9(C+40) = 5(F+40) Which side gets the 9 is easy to remember as C needs a "boost" since C< F for any case you will need. I'll let you figure out why it works.
     
  19. theorist-constant12345 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,660
    Firstly , do you mean a sectional part of a circles circumference?

    If so there is far easier ways than your calculation, in the sense of just playing with numbers.

    pi/4*diameter gives you exactly one quarter of a circles circumference.

    Or simply Pi*diameter / 4

    I do not see your point is in any reference to anything?
     
  20. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Jason,
    But you never told us why H deserves to have any consideration outside this invented context.

    The question mark (?) signifies a question, in this case a question I don't have the answer to because I clearly think no one has expressed a reason to believe the statement, 2 × (H × r)² = π × r², is of interest.
    Here I express why I consider why no one should believe the statement, 2 × (H × r)² = π × r², is of interest, because it's trivial.

    Like 1040 + 409 = 1449 is trivial and not worthy of a new thread because it is trivial to anyone who understand decimal place notation, 2 × (H × r)² = π × r² is trivial to anyone who understands the rudiments of algebra.

    See how I related H above to a specific geometric relationship between a circle, a square, and a second square as a justification to introducing H into that specific discussion. Well here, I have no discussion, just a bare, naked, trivial fact that you did not know.

    Logic and mathematics are not some final steps in communication requiring some "translation" -- they are the first steps in thinking that are required to have your viewpoint be shareable. They are your unescapable burden.

    Where did you attempt to steal this fire from, Prometheus?
    \(\Gamma(p) = \int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-x} x^{p-1} dx ; \quad \quad \textrm{for} \Re (p) \gt 0 \\ \Gamma(n+1) = n! \\ \Gamma(p) \, \Gamma(1-p) \; = \; \frac{\pi}{\sin ( \pi p ) }\)
    These expressions may be copied down by you but they don't imply what you write next.
    \(\Gamma(p) \, \Gamma(1-p) \; = \; \frac{\pi}{\sin ( \pi p ) }\) is the reflection identity which allows one to demonstrate (Γ(½))² = π.
    Unlike the reflection identity, which is correct for any value of p, the above equation is only true for specific values of p, therefore you did not derive it correctly from the facts you quoted without citation. Determining which values of p it holds for is slightly a matter of interpretation, for which you give no exposition to allow us how to interpret. But why bother since (H*r)sqrt{2}/r hasn't been written in simplest form yet.

    That's not acceptable. You need to hire a math tutor and work for years to master algebra, geometry and calculus before you will reach the point where I am to say that your labors are sterile, devoid of value and unhelpful. Logic and mathematics are not some final steps in communication requiring some "translation".

    By claiming to "know" your "fundamental argument is sound" you are in fact claiming to have the prerequisites to know that. This appears untrue. Logic and mathematics are not some final steps in communication requiring some "translation" -- they are the first steps in thinking that are required to have your viewpoint be shareable.

    I'm not the one who wastes other people's time after coming to them for instruction, so kindly leave your comments about the ugliness of my personality at the door. Your story seems to be inconsistent. Above you write about what you "know" and here about what you "seek." In both alternatives, I tell you the manner in which you are going about it is wrong.
     
  21. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,740
    And who is "unfamiliar" with the Celsius temperature scale? Ah, the Americans, almost uniquely
     
  22. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654

    "(r/4+r)=H*r "
    the statement above is what I need to prove true I have not done that yet perhaps I calculate something incorrectly but this is the concept I used to solve the quadrature problem
     
  23. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    When graphing a linear equation, we often like to write it in the form y = m x + b because that spells out where the line crosses the y axis and what the slope of the line is.
    Or we can write the same relation as x = (1/m) y - b/m if we want to know where the line crosses the x-axis (which it does, assuming m ≠ 0).

    Now if the slope is a rational number, m = p/q for some integers p and q, and 1/m = q/p. So we will assume p ≠ 0 and q ≠ 0.

    Now if p ≠ q, then the lines y = (p/q) x + b and y = (q/p) x - b q/p are mirror images of each other with respect to the line x = y and all three lines cross at a single point.
    x₀ = y₀ = b/(1 - p/q) = q b / ( q - p).
    Since y = (p/q) x + b and y₀ = (p/q) x₀ + b, then we may subtract the second equation term-by-term from the first equation and get (y - y₀) = (p/q) ( x - x₀) or q (y - y₀) = p ( x - x₀) or q (y - q b / ( q - p)) = p ( x - q b / ( q - p))

    From Billy T's post we conclude q = 9, p = 5, q b / ( q - p) = -40 which is consistent with b = -160/9 and C = (5/9) F - 160/9 = (5/9)(F - 32), hurray.

    So 9(C+40) = 5(F+40), C = (5/9)(F - 32), F = (9/5) C + 32, F/9 - C/5 = 32/9 are all equivalent ways of writing the same linear relationship between C and F.
     

Share This Page