rpenner, Yet again you've failed to answer my simple question. I am done responding to your BS until you answer my questions without trying to pull off your illusions. Smoke and mirrors is what you bring to the table!
The diagram in post #7 is a humbug This is hilarious, since you are the only one not using the Pythagorean theorem. Use of the Pythagorean theorem is the basis for the claim that the line CD is of length √3, not √3.14. The diagram is claimed to not be a construction of the length √3.14. Found in the diagram is a construction of a length of √3 and sloppy fat lines that might blur the difference, but personal sloppiness is not going to fix the construction to say what you want it to say. I agree that IF the side of the square is √3.14 (a claim which has not been demonstrated as following from the construction) then the area of the square is 3.14 and therefore the 1/4 of the area is exactly 0.785. This is close to, but smaller than 1/4 of the area of the circle which is π/4 ≈ 0.785398... because since the OP we have been talking about approximations to squaring the circle, not actually squaring the circle which is impossible using these tools as stated in [post=3222515]post #40[/post]. If your level of mathematics is so bad you have to ask us to check your arithmetic of dividing 3.14 by 4, then you come off the worse for it. But you haven't touched your burden to demonstrate the diagram in [post=3222223]post #7[/post] is the least bit relevant to the conversation. The OP requested a construction for a side of length √3.14, and while you have claimed since [post=3222273]post #9[/post] that the side length was √3.14, you nowhere demonstrated that this side was constructed as part of the unlabeled construction in [post=3222223]post #7[/post], despite the diagram being called a fraud in [post=3222271]post #8[/post], [post=3222328]post #10[/post], [post=3222335]post #12[/post] and [post=3222479]post #22[/post], which was further amplified in [post=3222462]post #19[/post], [post=3222495]post #28[/post], and [post=3222634]post #79[/post] where finally a fully labelled diagram was made comparing the parts of your construction which are thought to be well-understood with a hypothetical square with sides of length √3.14 that is not touched by your construction lines based on the circle. The diagram in [post=3222223]post #7[/post] is a humbug and any claim that it is a construction of a square with sides of length √3.14 is a fraud.
So you gathered the courage to answer the question, I see, albeit typical to your style, bury it with a pile of rubbish. The square was already determined at the start to be 3.14 square units of area, the SAME as the circle area. Your use of pi in this exercise is BS, because the premise is to use exactly 3.14, so save your crap on that difference. The 3.14 can just as easily be pi and you damn well know it! So the square is 3.14 square units of area. The top right square then, being EXACTLY 1/4 of the total area, means the top right square has .785 square units of area, period! Oh, let's not forget, it's a square, which means the sides are all the same length. What length, you ask? Easy, a square with .785 square units of square area has sides of \(sqrt{3.14}/2\). Period! You lose!!
I suppose it is educational to discuss Motor Daddy's errors, but I still don't think he agrees that they are errors. When does denial become trolling?
I suppose you know the length of the sides of a square that has .785 square units of area? You ready to share it with the group now, or you just out for a quick troll?
Yawn. I have a calculator, but I don't feel like playing games with you. Take a remedial arithmetic course, or go ask someone who doesn't need one if you really want to know...
So I'll take that as a clue that you don't know the length of the sides, which means you're trolling. Side length, please? Pretty please??
Get a clue yourself, or take your meds. The trivially obtained answer is .886002257. So the hell what? Did you win a prize because I calculated it? I'll bet not! Not until you get the last word... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Motor Daddy is our resident Math & Science troll. He admits to being a car mechanic, from which I surmise he found the site upon wanting to learn the engine & drivetrain mechanics of a Quantum. It must have been a shock to him that college educated people, some of whom never even got their fingernails dirty, were better at mechanics than him. And of course he lost his marbles when he discovered there was something called Newtonian mechanics. Newton couldn't have worked on a car, he reasons, and therefore Newton is a fraud, as is all of physics. He has no idea what calculus is, so he doesn't understand why trashing Newton trashes all of higher math. He has just barely learned how to do a few units conversions, after a slow and agonizing process involving thousands of posts over the time it took me to earn a BS. His biggest obstacle is that he can't accept that there is more to know than what he left behind at about the 5th grade level. Therefore, everyone who went on to learn more is, in his opinion, simply wrong. All of academia, all of science -- in spite of all of the systems he knows are working, which depend on the same math & science -- it's all wrong. He alone is right, since, from the bubble he lives in, the world has not progressed beyond the 5th grade level either. It's one of the quintessential cases of denial from the many crackpots who troll here regularly.
So Dr_Toad agrees with me and disagrees with rpenner and Neddy. Where do you stand on the length of the sides of a square that has .785 square units of area, Mouth?
Thanks, Aqueous. When did he take the title from {insert name here. You know who I mean..}? :thumbsup: No, Dr_Toad does not agree with your pathetic BS, MotorMouth.
I say the sides are the same length as you do. rpenner and Neddy do not agree with us on the side length.
That's not the question you asked them. Try asking them the same question you asked me, why don't you?
So you want to take back your answer and make it the same as theirs? What is the area of the pink, red, and blue triangle? You are locking yourself in with every answer, so be VERY careful what you believe to be true!!
I wouldn't be surprised if all the trolls on this site reduce to about 3 people. This could just as well be Farsight, Chinglu, RealityCheck, Reiku, Arne/DLH/sscully or about a dozen other "people". But watch them pop back and forth, never (or rarely) logged in at the same time. Of course, they are also sometimes trolling the other science sites, which are quick (so it seems) to run their BS to ground and ban them. Unfortunately for the folks that occasionally drop by to ask questions like this, the trolls like to turn the threads into fresh opportunities to pit 5th grade crackpot claims against the reasoned responses of rational people who like solving puzzles. Someday there will be a positive ID system in place that bars all the juvenile delinquents from bothering us. Preferably, it would activate a taser at the keyboard end whenever the habitual criminal re-offends, kinda like the Simpsons electric shock aversion therapy, only the trolls would be the only ones on the receiving end. That, I suspect, is the next era to follow the Information Age: turned on, tuned in, fully wired as per rpenner, kickin butt and takin names. In any case, it's probably time for an invasive form of ID in the site software, to at least reduce trolling.
Likewise, I wouldn't be surprised if rpenner is the same person as James R, or AN, or Pete, or Neddy Bate, or Tach. Not you though, those people are much smarter than you are. Your posts lack substance.
Aqueous, that's easy. Make your rules 'deny from all' and allow specific addresses to connect. Since that's not practical for a public forum, You can ban IP ranges that belong to bad networks or known trolls. And it's fun to watch the hit counter on your firewall increasing. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'm just trying to get the record straight...are you saying I am as smart as a 5th grader, or smarter than a 5th grader? I've watched the 5th grade smart show with Whitetail expert, Jeff, as long as he gets more than 3 shots, Foxworthy, and I'm here to tell you, I am NOT smarter than a 5th grader!
It's a question of what 5th graders were learning in math and science decades ago when something interrupted your schooling. Same issue with a handful of cranks who troll these threads. They all seem to be grade school dropouts. Or, as I prefer to imagine, we have one 5th grade dropout who has 20 sock puppets who are pretty regular contributors. Alters? Do you by any chance lose track of time for days at a time, wake up in strange places, receive mail for people you don't know, meet people who want to know what happened to your German accent? You might have multiple personality syndrome and not even know it. You/them/whoever. Our luck they would all insist on posting here. If Frankenstein could be sent over to the bat cave to kill Dracula, then in a perfect world you would use your inexhaustible supply of baseless argumentation to put a pox on Reiku, chinglu, Farsight, and a few of the other religious trolls who keep rearing their ugly heads. We could start a new thread category called "5th grade vs. 7th grade: Gladiator Ring of the Developmentally Challenged". New rules could be in force there. For example, you would get banned for failing to sling childish insults at least once per post. Everyone would be expected to be envious of Newton, Einstein, and at least one more well known scientist, if they could only remember who it was. All math would be limited to integer quantities less than 21, to allow counting on fingers and toes (with reasonable accommodations for amputees). Everything else would be quantized on a scale 0-20. Everyone gets a coloring book, a protractor and a ruler, and has no problem squaring the circle because they come out as a circular arrangement of blocks. In a perfect world, that is. Something more intrusive, like an app registered to a set of dental records maybe. Bite on a set of plates to log in. Something like that. True, I spend less time explaining units conversions and the futility of carrying 23 digits to get a ballpark estimate of the difference in speed of a boat going with and against the current. I'm sure those are all more substantial to you, since the rest of what I post tends to assume most readers have graduated high school.
