Why is the universe asymmetrical?

I'll have to take your word for it that this creates a sphere and does not employ Pi. If it still requires Pi I think the issue isn't resolved. As to ALL numbers have an infinite sequence of digits doesn't seem to address the issue.

2.000000000.....n can be an infinite series of "0's" but it is a finite number. No number with an infinite series of digits (non-finite) would seem physically impossible to project mathematically since you can never apply Pi or them fully.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I guess I thought you would recognize the equation for a sphere. It's usually high school material. I guess I should never assume that something is too remedial for you to be ignorant of.

I don't recall writing pi in the definition of the sphere. did you see one that I didn't write? Or maybe you're just trying to change the subject.

pi is also a finite number. for example pi is less than 4.

i don't understand this sentence at all, but I wish to reiterate that we are talking about things that are mathematically constructible, not physically constructible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Basic trigonometry shows that that equation represents a sphere (with radius of one unit, centred at the origin). Or just common sense. Here it is in words:

The set of all vectors in three-space with magnitude equal to one unit.

If you want to identify pi as a special type of number, you should call it "transcendental," not, "infinite." A number is transcendental if it is not algebraic, that is, if it is not the solution to any polynomial equation with rational coefficients. Basically, if n is transcendental, it can't be expressed in any manner using addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, or extraction of roots over the rational numbers. Transcendentals are a subset of the irrationals. They are uncountable (as opposed to the algebraics, which are countable). There's no such thing as an "infinite number." The closest thing would be the cardinalities of infinite sets.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

can I ask why they are called rational and irrational numbers?

 

rational numbers are numbers that are ratios of integers. Irrational numbers are numbers that are not rational.

 

I was thinking more about volume or surface formulas which use Pi.

You didn't and I didn't say you did.

Maybe in your world but not mine. It is also less then 9,999. The value of Pi is not a finite number nor does it have a finite number of decimal places. It is unending without repeating sequences.[/QUOTE]

 

In your world, pi is not less than 4? wow. That's a pretty fucked up world.

yeah, it's less than 9,999, so therefore it can't be infinite.

I would like to quote Yuriy here: "the parade of stupidity continues"

I agree that it has an infinite sequence of digits in its decimal representation. But then again, so does 1/7. So once again, just to be clear, you think that numbers with infinitely many digits are infinite?

 

A fucked up world is one where people play with symantics and fabricate statements not made as being those of others. Show where I said Pi was not less than 4 - dumb really dumb BS.

Nobody has said it was. So what is your point. Like talking to yourself do you?

I would have to agree. We just won't agree on who is being stupid here.

What I said and what is true and what you have not addressed but created non-issue side remarks about is that Pi is an unending series of non-repeating decimals. You can therefore never fully measure or apply Pi either mathematically or physically.

Now I never said that did I. You might like to infer something stupid but that is stupid in of itself. Better luck next time.

 

The post above yours shows the following exchange:

so... this is where you said that in your world, pi is not less than 4. If you are going to claim that I made it up, you should at least go back and delete your words first.

you never said it wasn't infinite? wait, what's this here:

so.... do you think pi is infinite or don't you? Make up your mind, you fucking crackpot.

Oh, lemme guess, you think I'm stupid? Why, because I think that pi is finite? Or because I'm claiming you said things that you never said?

Yes, I agree with this. Of course pi has an infinite sequence of digits in its decimal representation. I've already admitted as much. Let me admit another fact. The decimal representation of 1/7 has an infinite sequence of digits.

right, you can't measure pi. that's why I have never claimed that a perfect sphere was physically possible.

you think that pi is not mathematically constructable? Well that is demonstrably false. Observe:

π=2*cos^-1(0)

so the decimal representation is infinite. So what? there are other representations that I can write down with just a few characters. What I gave above is a mathematical description of pi.

you never said that pi is infinite? Maybe you're getting senile in your old age, because you said it. Let me show you again:

 

MacM,

Finiteness of the decimals of a ratio (pi) is a precondition for a perfect sphere/circle ?

All you need are a finite centre & finite radius to construct a perfect sphere physically, if you can. You need just finite radius to construct a perfect sphere mathematically. Still pi will have inifinite decimals.

 

would I be right in sayinhg that the volume of the sphere could never be fully resolved?

 

what do you mean "resolved"? how does one resolve a volume?

 

The volume could be as precise as the value of pi you apply.

There are other primitive methods to measure the volume of the sphere exactly without using pi.

 

ahhh but of course....thanks

 

It would seem that knowing, being able to therefore apply the precise value of any number having decimal, goes to the issue of claiming a precise result.

If you cannot know , write down or apply the complete value of a number then you can only get closer and closer to some perfect application.

i.e. - I think it would be easy to agree that if I use 3.0000 as a value for pi that you would say I have not created a perfiect circle or sphere.

Going to 3.14 I get closer but still am not perfect. And so it goes. So in short the anser is yes you must have the complete value to create anything jperfiect.

 

It would seem that knowing, being able to therefore apply the precise value of any number having decimal, goes to the issue of claiming a precise result.

If you cannot know , write down or apply the complete value of a number then you can only get closer and closer to some perfect application.

i.e. - I think it would be easy to agree that if I use 3.0000 as a value for pi that you would say I have not created a perfiect circle or sphere.

Going to 3.14 I get closer but still am not perfect. And so it goes. So in short the answer is yes you must have the complete value to create anything perfect.

How do you propose to apply your finite radius mathematically to produce any values of a sphere.?

I suspect that I am wrong on this issue in that one can write equations for the radius being rotated through all steradian angles and hence at the end of the radius have swept out the surface of a sphere.

As I responded to Lethe above I was thinking more of surface and volume calculation which require Pi. But if Pi is not used then yes it can be done.

I have laready stated that.

 

Lethe,

I am not going to respond further to this line of BS. I have not once claimed Pi was infinite. I did say it was not finite. But I explained what I meant by that and that was the fact that it has an unending string of non-repeating sequences of decimal places.

I will not play your symantics game.

 

on this line, rotate radius to get perfect circle, rotate the circle to get perfect sphere. but the equation lethe gave would be easier to get all the points that construct a perfect sphere. my point is first you get a perfect sphere mathematically without using pi, but still it would have the ratio - circumference to diameter - with infinite decimals. no problem.

 

Is there a name for these mystical numbers that are not finite and not infinite? McCoin numbers, perhaps?

 

And you a mathematician! Don't you know that what's going on here is e^iπ + 1?