Rings

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 4533
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Rings

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:57 pm

Take the Earth's equator and add 30 feet to it. Now you have a slightly larger ring to compare with the equator.

Have both of them occupy the same plane so that the smaller ring is inside of the larger ring and they both share the same center. My question is whether there's enough space between the two rings to fit a sheet of paper through?

PhilX

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Rings

Post by Noax » Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:06 pm

How is this simple grade-school geometry problem even remotely related to philosophy?
It is no wonder I cannot find meaningful threads on this forum with all the useless topics they let dilute the lists.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 4533
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Rings

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:20 pm

Noax wrote:
Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:06 pm
How is this simple grade-school geometry problem even remotely related to philosophy?
It is no wonder I cannot find meaningful threads on this forum with all the useless topics they let dilute the lists.
Maybe you would like to explain that if Jupiter were substituted for Earth, the same answer would occur.

PhilX

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Rings

Post by Noax » Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:45 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:20 pm
Maybe you would like to explain that if ...
No, I would not. That was my point. Wrong forum.
If you need to duck to walk under this ring , you're old enough to know this is the wrong place to post such questions.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 4533
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Rings

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:50 pm

Noax wrote:
Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:45 pm
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:20 pm
Maybe you would like to explain that if ...
No, I would not. That was my point. Wrong forum.
If you need to duck to walk under this ring , you're old enough to know this is the wrong place to post such questions.
Since you seem to know so much about philosophy, maybe you can answer this question which no one to date has or at least is willing to. What is philosophy?

PhilX

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3846
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Rings

Post by Harbal » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:10 pm

Noax wrote:
Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:06 pm
It is no wonder I cannot find meaningful threads on this forum with all the useless topics they let dilute the lists.
Try looking in the pompous ass forum.

wtf
Posts: 387
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: Rings

Post by wtf » Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:28 am

If the circumference of a circle is C then its radius is r = C/2π. If C is replaced by C + 30 then the new radius is

r' = (C + 30)/2π = C/2π + 30/2π.

The new radius is exactly 30/2π larger than the original radius.

Now what is curious about this and a bit counterintuitive is that the change in the radius is independent of the original circumference C. So if you started with a tiny tiny little circle and added 30 to the circumference, the new radius would increase by 30/2π. And if you started with a circle the size of the universe and added 30 to it, the new radius would increase by 30/2π. [About 4.77...]

I imagine it's that factoid that attracted PE's attention. The increase in the radius is independent of the size of the original circle. Is there some philosophy in that? I do think most people would be surprised by that and might have predicted that the size of the original circle matters.

I must admit that when I saw the title I thought you wanted to talk about ring theory.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests