|
So you reckon you can make a square that is PRECISELY Pi.r along each side do you?
First, please give me the PRECISE value for pi.
(I am a physicist not a mathematician, the accounts came later as I realised that as a physicist, I would starve to death).
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur .
|
|
|
|
|
[My God, he hasn't even noticed]
The same value of pi is used for both calculations, ipso facto, I rest my case...
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
OK then, now go and construct it.
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur .
|
|
|
|
|
Okidoki. Just send me the value of r and your construction of the circle I have to match it to.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, that wasn't what was asked.
I merely stated you could not construct a square with the same are as a circle.
I had to google[^] but found this
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur .
|
|
|
|
|
What is obvious, but that you are ridiculously missing, is that every square you construct has the same area as a circle.
How many circles are there?
Um, that would be an infinite number.
Don't worry; it's one of those obvious points that everyone misses*, so you're not alone.
* That's not entirely true; I spotted it right away.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps the actual disagreement is because it is being discussed by an engineer (practical) and a mathematician (theoretical.)
In the first case the definition of "construct" means building a box in the real world.
In the second it is a point of proving that for a theoretical box and theoretical circle exists (provably.)
In terms of the engineer one might note that since the box cannot be built using 'precise' measurements then one cannot hold the same requirement for the circle. Further of course measuring the area of either is not 'precise' either for a real world example using actual measured values and not calculated.
|
|
|
|
|
Err Dave - it's a wind up. π(r<super>2)
|
|
|
|
|
SHH!
Spoilsport!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
The whole world knows that the PRECISE value of pi is 3.14
|
|
|
|
|
As any fule no π = 4
See Here[^]
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur .
|
|
|
|
|
Well thanks never knew you could do that, learnt something new today 
Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians.
Help end the violence EAT BACON
|
|
|
|
|
Hold on!
It's one thing leading DD up the garden path, but the equation is actually pi(r2) -- the bollocks I said earlier doesn't work; it was a heffalump trap.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I never actually googled what you put.
But "construct a square from pi.r" lead me to a few good examples and broke the pi(r2) down even further with some good explainations 
Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians.
Help end the violence EAT BACON
|
|
|
|
|
 Seems this one might be too subtle for a lot of people.
|
|
|
|
|
A little humour is a dangerous thing, apparently.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Dalek Dave wrote: 11630 isn't very interesting.
12407 isn't very interesting.
... Until someone finally twigs that they're the key to Fermat's Theorem, or some-such.
Now you apologise to 11630 and 12407, Davey, and play nicely.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
[voted up for the switch, which almost no-one will have noticed]
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
really did not. Still clue-less 
Thanks,
Milind
|
|
|
|
|
Well, 11630 is the lowest uninteresting number, which in itself is interesting, therefore it's not an uninteresting number, so 12407 must be the lowest uninteresting number, which in itself is interesting, therefore...
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
<-insert_symobol_for_lightbulb_here->
to Dalek and You...
Did not realize it at all. And wouldn't have for ages, hadn't you clarify.
Thanks,
Milind
|
|
|
|
|
I really don't want to sing 10,130,865 members were sitting on the wall.
If the zeros were leading zeros and I'de had a few, then I would sing it.
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: 10,130,865 Members!
10,130,865 Members and counting
FIFTY
|
|
|
|
|
Went to the cashpoint last night, put my card in, then PIN, requested 50 quid, collected card and walked off. It was only when I got to the takeaway I realised I'd forgotten the cash.
So I'm trying to get it back, let's see how this goes. I think technically I should as either the machine would have taken it back or someone would have taken it which would be theft.
I agree that this is my responsibility and really I should take the hit not the bank, but then again they charged me £125 for going overdrawn 5 times last month - so **** them. Arguments are still very much in progress about that. It's HSBC should you want to know who not to bank with.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
If no-one was around, then you should be okay.
ATM's will recall the notes if you don't pull them out and void the transaction, but do confirm it was cancelled with your bank.
speramus in juniperus
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
