Philosophy Now Forum

What's wrong with the area of the circle?

Here is the answer by an Indian professor who says that the area of the circle is wrong. I found this interesting article on a website.

I have provided the link here:- http://vixra.org/abs/1308.0126

Can the community members please comment on it.

mathenthusiast wrote:What's wrong with the area of the circle?

Here is the answer by an Indian professor who says that the area of the circle is wrong. I found this interesting article on a website.

I have provided the link here:- http://vixra.org/abs/1308.0126

Can the community members please comment on it.

You and your Indian professor should join "Idiots anonymous", could be quite helpful.

Since pi is a transcendental number the area of a circle has never been exactly right. How then someone supposes to say it is wrong when it being inexact and hence wrong - is a fundamental law of pi's nature - is anyone's guess.

Id say the area of a circle is easy to verify scientifically. Just get a cylinder, and a square. Fill the cylinder with water. Fill the square with water. Compare the volumes after ward. I doubt after centuries of science nopony bothered to do this.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Id say the area of a circle is easy to verify scientifically. Just get a cylinder, and a square. Fill the cylinder with water. Fill the square with water. Compare the volumes after ward. I doubt after centuries of science nopony bothered to do this.

Huh?

Euclidean geometry is fun

-Imp

No it is not Imp it is what it is. What is fun well you couldn't explain and never will.

Do give me a call though when you can be bothered to join the conversation. It would be my pleasure to listen to something other than a few words, from someone who presumably has no ability to explain anything, and hence does not.

mathenthusiast wrote: ↑Sat Feb 21, 2015 2:04 am What's wrong with the area of the circle?

Here is the answer by an Indian professor who says that the area of the circle is wrong. I found this interesting article on a website.

I have provided the link here:- http://vixra.org/abs/1308.0126

Can the community members please comment on it.

Approximation is a constant form of definition all linguists and mathematicians observe. Even 1 + 1 = 2 manifests an approximate nature when considering "1", "+" and "2" are defined through the numbers they mirror...with these numbers manifesting unto infinity.

An approximate definition does contain consistency, and the paper this professor observes seems (in my opinion only) more of a qualitative understanding of numbers rather than a quantitative one. In these respects Pi is the perfect number as it observes this duality of quantity and quality and synthesizes them in all number, but also the point, line and circle as the foundations for geometry.

Pi is the most important number, in my opinion, and one of the most valid except for "1".