User Controls
"Race is just a social construct"
-
2020-07-13 at 5:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by ORACLE The circumference of a mathematical circle in a Euclidian space might always be 3.14 but that is a matter of accepting the rules by declaration
No it isn't...whether you accept it or not...if a human cut 3.14 pieces of string the same length as the radius of a selected circle...they would fit perfectly around the circumference...regardless of if the human accepted the rule or not...he would be wrong not to accept the rule... the fact would remain those 3.14 pieces of string would fit.
If a goat had the intellect to cut the string and lay it around the circumference the result would be the same.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2020-07-13 at 5:58 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson No it isn't…whether you accept it or not…if a human cut 3.14 pieces of string the same length as the radius of a selected circle…they would fit perfectly around the circumference…regardless of if the human accepted the rule or not…he would be wrong not to accept the rule… the fact would remain those 3.14 pieces of string would fit.
If a goat had the intellect to cut the string and lay it around the circumference the result would be the same.
No it wouldn't, as we don't live in a Euclidian geometry. You might approximate it, but it's simply not true. -
2020-07-13 at 5:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by ORACLE No it wouldn't, as we don't live in a Euclidian geometry. You might approximate it, but it's simply not true.
If alien species #491 drew a perfect circle on their planet of Fartgiver, then the radius of that circle would still fit 3.14 (etc) times around it's circumference...they would also never have heard of the Greek fella you are mentioning...again the rule set exists regardless of humans. -
2020-07-13 at 6 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson No it isn't…whether you accept it or not…if a human cut 3.14 pieces of string the same length as the radius of a selected circle…they would fit perfectly around the circumference…regardless of if the human accepted the rule or not…he would be wrong not to accept the rule… the fact would remain those 3.14 pieces of string would fit.
If a goat had the intellect to cut the string and lay it around the circumference the result would be the same.
Just do you know, you are wasting your time. All that matters is what Falcon perceives the popular opinion to be. -
2020-07-13 at 6:01 PM UTC
-
2020-07-13 at 6:02 PM UTCJust so you know Gay Style's only tactic to cope with his butthurt is too cheerlead other people getting raped by me.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2020-07-13 at 6:02 PM UTC
Originally posted by ORACLE He lost ^
See the edit sparky...
If alien species #491 drew a perfect circle on their planet of Fartgiver, then the radius of that circle would still fit 3.14 (etc) times around it's circumference...they would also never have heard of the Greek fella you are mentioning...again the rule set exists regardless of humans. -
2020-07-13 at 6:05 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson If alien species #491 drew a perfect circle on their planet of Fartgiver, then the radius of that circle would still fit 3.14 (etc) times around it's circumference…they would also never have heard of the Greek fella you are mentioning…again the rule set exists regardless of humans.
Nowhere in the universe has totally flat space, therefore no it would not hold true, as having a flat geometry is a necessary assumption for it to hold true.
Same way that in a curved geometry the internal angles of a triangle don't add up to 180 degrees. In the real world, space is curved. -
2020-07-13 at 6:07 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson See the edit sparky…
If alien species #491 drew a perfect circle on their planet of Fartgiver, then the radius of that circle would still fit 3.14 (etc) times around it's circumference…they would also never have heard of the Greek fella you are mentioning…again the rule set exists regardless of humans.
If I ever somehow happen to discover an alien planet, I hereby vow to name it Fartgiver. -
2020-07-13 at 6:10 PM UTCAlso alien maths is a fascinating idea. Who among them would have discovered these natural rules, and how? How would their understanding of things like calculus, fourier transforms, boolean logic, etc differ from ours? It'd be really interesting to learn about, but they'd probably have 10,000 generations of high tech evolution on us, and think of us as being dumb as goats compared to them and too frustratingly slow to be worth wasting time on teaching.
-
2020-07-13 at 6:13 PM UTC
-
2020-07-13 at 6:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by ORACLE Nowhere in the universe has totally flat space, therefore no it would not hold true, as having a flat geometry is a necessary assumption for it to hold true.
Same way that in a curved geometry the internal angles of a triangle don't add up to 180 degrees. In the real world, space is curved.
Irrelevant to the point. That if alien species #491 came up with the same conclusion Euclid did then it's circumference would still be 3.14 (etc) times that of it's radius...the rule is independent of humans...that's the point. The rule would exist regardless of human existence.
That is "math", doesn't require a perfect circle to exist in nature for that to be a factual rule. And Math can be used on a realistic level to apply to the natural world too as tiny inconsequential differences are just that inconsequential for most applications.
Just as lots of physics breaks down on the sub atomic level too..it still plays a roll in your daily life as you don't live your life on the sub atomic level. -
2020-07-13 at 6:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by ORACLE Nowhere in the universe has totally flat space, therefore no it would not hold true, as having a flat geometry is a necessary assumption for it to hold true.
Same way that in a curved geometry the internal angles of a triangle don't add up to 180 degrees. In the real world, space is curved.
thats just as retarded as saying just because the earth is a ball therefore no flat surfaces or straight horizontal lines are possible on earth. -
2020-07-13 at 6:19 PM UTC
Just as lots of physics breaks down on the sub atomic level too..it still plays a roll in your daily life as you don't live your life on the sub atomic level.
*role...too busy thinking about sandwiches. -
2020-07-13 at 6:23 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson Irrelevant to the point. That if alien species #491 came up with the same conclusion Euclid did then it's circumference would still be 3.14 (etc) times that of it's radius…the rule is independent of humans…that's the point. The rule would exist regardless of human existence.
That is "math", doesn't require a perfect circle to exist in nature for that to be a factual rule. And Math can be used on a realistic level to apply to the natural world too as tiny inconsequential differences are just that inconsequential for most applications.
Just as lots of physics breaks down on the sub atomic level too..it still plays a roll in your daily life as you don't live your life on the sub atomic level.
Completely relevant to the point as no it wouldn't, they could only construct an approximation because if they constructed a circle it would only approximately have a ratio of pi if it was embedded in flat space. It's not so it won't. It only works when we accept by declaration that we are working in a flat space. And that's all it is, just like the rule for the movement of a knight piece is 1 lateral square for 2 medial squares. -
2020-07-13 at 6:26 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny thats just as retarded as saying just because the earth is a ball therefore no flat surfaces or straight horizontal lines are possible on earth.
Assuming flat space works approximately because the pull of gravity is weak, but you can already see it breaking down as an assumption with GPS technology for example, where it simply would not work in a Newtonian paradigm.
Similarly, you can work in a flat geometry approximately even on the surface of the earth. For example you have to make 3 90 degree turns in the same rotational direction to return to your starting point locally. But if you walked from the North pole to the equator, turned 90 degrees left, walk some distance, turned 90 degrees left and walk straight, you would return to the North pole.
Even in that case it's only approximate. -
2020-07-13 at 6:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by ORACLE Completely relevant to the point as no it wouldn't, they could only construct an approximation because if they constructed a circle it would only approximately have a ratio of pi if it was embedded in flat space. It's not so it won't. It only works when we accept by declaration that we are working in a flat space. And that's all it is, just like the rule for the movement of a knight piece is 1 lateral square for 2 medial squares.
http://www.easy-math.net/area-of-a-circle-and-derivation-of-pi/ -
2020-07-13 at 6:48 PM UTChttps://physics.illinois.edu/news/article/10665
But let us not forget that π (the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter) is not actually constant in non-Euclidean geometry.
-
2020-07-13 at 6:49 PM UTCHoly fuck
-
2020-07-13 at 7:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by ORACLE Completely relevant to the point as no it wouldn't, they could only construct an approximation because if they constructed a circle it would only approximately have a ratio of pi if it was embedded in flat space. It's not so it won't. It only works when we accept by declaration that we are working in a flat space. And that's all it is, just like the rule for the movement of a knight piece is 1 lateral square for 2 medial squares.
It's nothing like the rules of chess, you can change the rules of chess as an independent player and as a chess "governing body"
"ok today the knight can only move 2 places diagonally, that's it...we are changing that rule but the game remains as chess".
The game would continue with the new rule...that being the knight's move is now 2 places diagonally.
However, you can't change the rule as applied to PI...
"OK as of today the circumference of a circle will measure APPROXIMATELY 2 times that of the radius instead of the previously used 3.14".
You can make the statement but you can't change the rule...as 2 radius's wouldn't fit...the 3.14 rule would still apply.
