this thread is for Rpenner

please guys I know your having fun but I don't have much time can someone please address this mostly Rpenner if available...
well the reason I was asking is because I found this interesting I have not look over all of Rpenners math so this may not even mean anything so just try and make sense of it for me I remember Rpenner said circles with different diameters or not similar so there might be no connection but if there is let me know Rpenner. ok here goes if Pi * r^2 = X then r*180=Y then X=Y then X= a squares area... Y= a circles area
This is true for both the natural circle of radius 180/pi and this circle of different diameter and different C/d ratio ...180/3.125
so 180/3.125 =r then 57.6 *180 = 10368 then 3.125 * 57.6^2 =10368= circle one
now 180/pi =r then r*180 = 10313 approximately then pi *180/pi= 10313 approximately =circle two

this is not true far any other number combinations unless I was mistaking??

and also for further clarification

360/115.2 = 3.125 ...and 360/180/pi *2 =pi and
3.125 * 115.2 = 360 ...and pi * 360/pi= 360
 
Last edited:
I once saw a proposal that made a lot of sense to me. Once we accept that we can never really use the exact value of pi in any practical manner (i.e. in the "real world") then perhaps we should list it with a subscript indicating the significant digits used in any given (e.g. manufacturing) calculation. $$\pi_4 \pi_8 \pi_{200}$$, etc.
 
Jason.Marshall said:
yes I know am asking why what does it mean visually?
Click to expand...
It's an equation with one uknown: it doesn't mean anything. It is just a cumbersome way of defining a value for r. You could make an infinite number of different relations, all equally meaningless. For example:
r*360=pi*r^4
r*2.5=pi*r

They don't mean anything at all.
is Pi * r^2 not just a square increased by the ratio of c/d?
Click to expand...
No, Pi*r^2 does not describe a square, much less say anything about it "increasing" (whatever that even means).
...and r*180 gives you the area of a circle if r = 180/pi?
Click to expand...
No, the area of a circle is pi*r^2. Without squaring the radius, you don't end up with units of area. What you did there doesn't make any sense.
so is this not the area of circle = the area of square?
Click to expand...
No.
Jason.Marshall said:
if Pi * r^2 = X then r*180=Y then X=Y then X= a squares area... Y= a circles area
Click to expand...
I think you meant to say that X is the circle's area, and Y is the square's area, but r*180 doesn't have units of area, so it can't be a square's area.

And even if you intended 180 to be in units of area (inches, meters, whatever), 180*(180/pi) is two different lengths, so it isn't a square!

I'm sorry, but it looks like you are just throwing random numbers and letters together without much of an understanding of what they mean or how they actually fit together. I really think you should take a step back and acutally learn some math. I'm sure there are local community colleges that offer adult education courses in remedial math and it would help you a lot to understand this stuff better rather than just throwing random gibberish together and wondering if it means anything.
 
Last edited:
Russ_Watters said:
It's an equation with one uknown: it doesn't mean anything. It is just a cumbersome way of defining a value for r. You could make an infinite number of different relations, all equally meaningless. For example:
r*360=pi*r^4
r*2.5=pi*r

They don't mean anything at all.

No, Pi*r^2 does not describe a square, much less say anything about it "increasing" (whatever that even means).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A square is defined by "a plane figure having 4 equal sides" so technically r^2 is a square symbolically, then multiply it by a factor of equal to pi it will still be a square technically speaking this should be obvious and straight forward thinking, hence the saying
Pi r "Squared"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, the area of a circle is pi*r^2. Without squaring the radius, you don't end up with units of area. What you did there doesn't make any sense.
**********************************************************************************************
Here I was simply making a comparison r 180 times will equal that circles area "if" r= 180/pi or 57.6 hopefully you know how to read in between the lines.
No.
**********************************************************************************************
I think you meant to say that X is the circle's area, and Y is the square's area, but r*180 doesn't have units of area, so it can't be a square's area.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
r= 180/pi or 57.6 degrees

And even if you intended 180 to be in units of area (inches, meters, whatever), 180*(180/pi) is two different lengths, so it isn't a square!

I never said this was a square I said it was equal to the area of a circle

I'm sorry, but it looks like you are just throwing random numbers and letters together without much of an understanding of what they mean or how they actually fit together. I really think you should take a step back and acutally learn some math. I'm sure there are local community colleges that offer adult education courses in remedial math and it would help you a lot to understand this stuff better rather than just throwing random gibberish together and wondering if it means anything.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hence the saying "pi r squared" definitions or describing something tangible they are not just meaningless words as how you would put it it would not be called a square if it was not a square common sense...
 
John.Marshall said:
A square is defined by "a plane figure having 4 equal sides" so technically r^2 is a square symbolically...
Click to expand...
No, r^2 is a number squared. It isn't, itself, a square. If you like, it can be considered the equatio for the area of a square, where "r" is the length of a side.
...then multiply it by a factor of equal to pi it will still be a square technically speaking...
Click to expand...
No. The area of a square is a=r^2 where "r" is equal to the length of a side. But a=180*r^2 is meaningless. It is just 180 times the area of the square.
Here I was simply making a comparison r 180 times will equal that circles area "if" r= 180/pi or 57.6 hopefully you know how to read in between the lines.
Click to expand...
I do: it doesn't.
r= 180/pi or 57.6 degrees
Click to expand...
A degree is a unit of angle. 180/pi is not.
I never said this was a square I said it was equal to the area of a circle
Click to expand...
It isn't that either.
Hence the saying "pi r squared" definitions or describing something tangible they are not just meaningless words as how you would put it it would not be called a square if it was not a square common sense...
Click to expand...
In e=mv^2, what is the square?
 
Russ_Watters said:
No, r^2 is a number squared. It isn't, itself, a square. If you like, it can be considered the equatio for the area of a square, where "r" is the length of a side.

No. The area of a square is a=r^2 where "r" is equal to the length of a side. But a=180*r^2 is meaningless. It is just 180 times the area of the square.

I do: it doesn't.

A degree is a unit of angle. 180/pi is not.

It isn't that either.

In e=mv^2, what is the square?[/QUOTE

Please add me on your block list I don't have time to waste arguing with you about semantics, you are someone that lacks vision common sense and comprehension you are dismissed.
Click to expand...
 
Beer w/Straw said:
Lacks vision in what way may I ask?
Click to expand...

I do not like repeating myself its a luxury right now I don't have time for, if you cant visualize the mathematical concept am talking about I apologize I don't have time to fill in the blanks that's why I prefer to talk with Rpenner because he gets it quick and I will not respond to something he says until I can fully analise every detail in full accurate comprehension of what his math is telling me if something is not clear to me I will not just assume a conclusion. This is the wrong time to play a game of semantics with me.
 
Jason.Marshall said:
Please add me on your block list I don't have time to waste arguing with you about semantics, you are someone that lacks vision common sense and comprehension you are dismissed.
Click to expand...
Lol, none of what I was explaining to you had anything to do with semantics and it wasn't a game. I was honestly trying to help you. Sorry, but you are severly lacking in math skills. I truly wish you luck in fixing that because this is the sort of misguided obsession that consumes peoples lives. Just ask Farsight! Unless there is somethign else going on, in which case math help may not be the right kind for you.
 
Only value your presence of existence can have to me is if you can get Rpenner to respond to my calculations other than that am sure you will be happy as to act as if I don't exist for that I assume will be mutually beneficial in other words don't talk to me unless you can bring Rpenner I do not value your opinion.
 
Jason.Marshall said:
Only value your presence of existence can have to me is if you can get Rpenner to respond to my calculations other than that am sure you will be happy as to act as if I don't exist for that I assume will be mutually beneficial in other words don't talk to me unless you can bring Rpenner.
Click to expand...
Blah, blah, blah. Not sure who you think you are, but this is an open forum. If you want a private chat with Rpenner, PM him.
 
Jason.Marshall said:
Only value your presence of existence can have to me is if you can get Rpenner to respond to my calculations other than that am sure you will be happy as to act as if I don't exist for that I assume will be mutually beneficial in other words don't talk to me unless you can bring Rpenner I do not value your opinion.
Click to expand...

Then don't respond! I don't see a lot of sense in what you are posting myself. Feel free to not respond to me either.
 
Tan (pi/4) is not equal 1 when pi = 3.125 it's equal to less than one

2 fractions is not a contradiction contrary to lamberts proof no integers and
Aproximately value 7.96/2.21 =3.60181

Pi only appears to be rational because 8/2.22 = 3.60360
This is why Tan(pi/4) = 1
 
Last edited:
Sorry if this makes no sense to anyone my math is sloppy I leave a lot of gaps because am lazy ask Rpenner if he could explain it better...I am a conceptual mathematician I just like communicating concepts like an artist you have to read between the lines and put it in your own words...
 
Russ_Watters said:
It's an equation with one uknown: it doesn't mean anything. It is just a cumbersome way of defining a value for r. You could make an infinite number of different relations, all equally meaningless. For example:
r*360=pi*r^4
r*2.5=pi*r

They don't mean anything at all.
Click to expand...

r=1
pi=3.14159

1*360=3.14159*1
1*2.5=3.14159*1

That's what you claim?
 
Motor Daddy said:
r=1
pi=3.14159

1*360=3.14159*1
1*2.5=3.14159*1

That's what you claim?
Click to expand...
No. When presented with an equation that has one unknown, you don't insert a random value for the variable, you solve the equation to find the value of the variable. You should take some remedial math too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top