Aer: You seem to be wanting to claim that, since N and 0 are "approximations", N/0 must be infinity. Then answer this. Suppose N = 20.000000 +/- 0.000001. (I am including the uncertainty explicitly.) Suppose, further, than x = 0.0 +/- 0.1 Question: What is your value for N/x, including the uncertainty? Next, suppose that x = 0.000000 +/- 0.000001. What is the value of N/x now? Suppose x is zero, plus or minus 0.[1 hundred million zeros]1. What is the value of N/x?
I already answered a similar question that funkstar posed. Keep reading. Here it is so you don't have to go searching: [360,000 ; +infinity] and [-360,000 ; -infinity] Would you care to share a real world example in which what you are dividing with can be positive and negative? I'm not saying it is impossible, I just don't have an example right off the top of my head. The asymptotic nature of the solution is what usually requires it either be positive or negative.
It may be better to look at it as: If I have N objects, and I split them into groups of P objects, how many groups will there be? (e.g. If I have 10 objects, and break them into groups of 2, there will be 10/2 = 5 groups.) If I have 10 objects, and break them into groups of zero, how many groups will there be?
I read your response to funkstar. You seem to be backing down from your initial statement, adding in a qualification that "only positive answers are allowed", in effect. Is that a correct summary of your position? If not, please explain.
Well, you are confused about what I am refering to. In the purposes of this thread, the answer can only be positive infinity because we are clearly approaching zero from the positive side. I qualified this later to say that if I knew a measurement must be positive, but the accuracy of my measuring device was slightly miscalibrated and measured a very small negative number - then I would still conclude that it is approximately zero as approaching from the right hand side. Now I added a little more explaination to what I mean because I am sure you can handle it - those other bozos, I am not so sure about.
Hey, I won't post the new plot, but I just found a nifty polar plotting add-in for excel. Works good.
Hey Sl great now use the digits of pi as a percentage in sequence instead of the table I posted....hmmmmm...is that possible
QQ, pi = C/D where C is the circumference of a circle and D is the diamter of the circle. It doesn't have anything to do with 360 degrees in a circle.
As a side note, I want to create a rectangle. So I take a circle with a diameter down the center. I slice the circle perpendicular to the diamter line. The resulting 4 pieces from the slice (2 identical pieces from the circumfernce (pieces can be straightened), 2 identical pieces from the diameter) are used to create my rectangle. What is the area of my rectangle?
as I said earlier it is way to hard to describe my reasoning. so I wont bother at the moment. However what i will share is that the center of the circle is an undefinable infinite point of reduction......The interest in it stems from the notion that to find the center of concentrated space time is an infinite task of constant reduction. It seemed to me that because Pi is an infinitly resolving value [ the resolution goes on infinitely] that it may have something to show us about the finding of our center of spacetime... sorry if this is confusing......maybe later I will be able to clarify my propositions a bit better...
A circle is not arbitrary in the context that it is different from a square? Maybe. ..it's hard to think like you.
shit man I find it hard to think like me...can't imagine how hard it would be for someone else to think like me..... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
