Wow, you just figured that out? This was obvious from the very beginning of this thread. Jason does not understand the difference between exact and approximate. It is so obvious it just screams!
Quadrature of a circle solved
- Thread starter Jason.Marshall
- Start date
lol I know you never read the whole explanation you see that's why I don't like explaining myself because I have to keep repeating myself like a broken record because no one bothers to take all the information in before coming to a conclusion.
Hang on a minute. What do you mean by a "perfect circle"?
If a circle has radius r, then it has circumference $$2 \pi r$$ and area $$\pi r^2$$. And that applies to every circle.
You can't "change the ratio of pi that is used" for a circle. pi is what it is.
This thread started with a couple of links to youtube clips. The rest gradually came up in the conversation.
3.125 is only an approximation of pi to one decimal place.
What it looks like is that Jason thinks that pi is somehow variable, and can be different for different circles. Or something. I'm trying to get to that.
yes that is true that is the Euclidean perfect circle. Please read my explanation in my previous post.
So are you saying you've squared a non-Euclidean circle. Squared a "not-perfect" circle? Or something like that?
If that's what you're saying, then you haven't solved the problem.
James your thinking about it wrong this is not the number you are thinking about in your head 357/114.24 its 360/115.2........357/114.24 this number is derived from 25/8 calculated in a Euclidean form I fixed the error here and bridged the gap from 2 dimensions to 3
Last edited:
No... am saying I have squared a perfect circle witch is both a perfect Euclidean circle and a perfect natural circle that could be constructed with a protractor they just have different diameters that was why I wrote the article explaining the relationship I described as "Quantum entangled doppelgangers" you can view the two different formulas on the link I provided actually I just used the Euclidean version on the link and here I used the other one. Honestly James did you even bother to look over my mathematical formulas or proofs?
Last edited:
We made a deal you said if no one can show an error in my math then you would remove my thread from pseudoscience?
Geez man ok here is the Euclidean form with formula modified...
"[(H*r/r/4+r) r/4+r]^2+[(H*r/r/4+r) r/4+r]^2= Pi*r^2"
H=sqrt{pi/2}
"[(H*r/r/4+r) r/4+r]^2+[(H*r/r/4+r) r/4+r]^2= Pi*r^2"
H=sqrt{pi/2}
Support that claim where is your evidence ? Further am still waiting for James to reply he has left the conversation prematurely without taking all my evidence into consideration. and I am not going to start over to explain it to you if you don't even bother to review my proof before commenting because I would bet my bottom dollar you never bothered to look at the proof as always making assumptions jumping to conclusions in haste and ignorance.Geeze Jason, what a waste of time.
Last edited:
Your posts.
Jason.Marshall,
You have failed to do what you claim to have done.
You have not explained what you think the difference is between a "perfect Euclidean circle" and a "perfect natural circle". Nor have you explained the difference between "Euclidean pi" and Jason.Marshall pi.
But let's assume it can be fixed. Then it will just be a meaningless identity. It will have factors of pi on the left-hand side and a factor of pi on the right-hand side. The pi's could be cancelled out on both sides to leave a simple quadratic identity in r.
This formula has nothing to do with squaring the circle, as far as I can tell.
Those ratios are just a bunch of numbers as far as I'm concerned. You claimed that you had squared the circle geometrically. Clearly you haven't done that. Your version of pi (3.125) is quite different from what pi actually is (3.14159...). If your proof involves the value 3.125 then it doesn't solve the problem.
You have failed to do what you claim to have done.
Your mathematical formulas seem to be ok, but they are simple identities. They do not prove that you have squared the circle.
You have not explained what you think the difference is between a "perfect Euclidean circle" and a "perfect natural circle". Nor have you explained the difference between "Euclidean pi" and Jason.Marshall pi.
The error in your math is that you think that pi is variable. Or, perhaps you think that 3.125 = 3.14159... I can't tell exactly what you think, because you don't explain yourself clearly. But the error is in you thinking you have squared the circle when actually you haven't.
It's difficult to parse that formula with its ambiguous division signs. But it doesn't look like it can be correct as written, because there are factors of r^2 that are not multipled by Pi on the left-hand side. That's if I am reading it correctly.
But let's assume it can be fixed. Then it will just be a meaningless identity. It will have factors of pi on the left-hand side and a factor of pi on the right-hand side. The pi's could be cancelled out on both sides to leave a simple quadratic identity in r.
This formula has nothing to do with squaring the circle, as far as I can tell.
I am most likely in a different time zone to you. I can't be online 24 hours a day to respond to you. Sometimes you will need to wait for a reply - sometimes even overnight or longer since I have a life outside this forum. Patience!
I am just trying to make my work comprehensible so everyone can understand what am saying I know am right I promise you somehow I will figure out the best way to explain my discover then you will owe me an apology for putting my thread in pseudoscience I guarantee you this, its just a matter of time the faster you see why this is correct the faster you will enjoy my work.
Last edited:
But here is the proof in a clearer form...
Last edited:
"c^2=pi*r^2"