You must log in or # to comment.
Easy. Take a wire that is exactly 1 meter long. Form a circle from the wire. The circumference of that circle is 1 meter.
A nanodegree of difference in temperature will change the length of the metal.
And this why you don’t touch the thermostat.
“exactly”
uh huh. and how are you measuring that?
Now the engineers and/or scientists are crying
Scientists maybe, engineering is all about calling things close enough.
You don’t need to, it’s defined. (Lol). If you take a circle with a circumference of 1, then its circumference will be 1… I think I might have lost some braincells reading this.
He obviously meant to say how do you measure that it’s exactly 1m, even when still in a straight line. Exactly being the key word here.
But is the circumference of the outer circle or inner circle 1m? The wire has a nonzero width.
I don’t have to measure it. I stick under glass and define it as the standard which all other measurements are derived from.
I will be measuring it in meters. One. There you go.
Ok, you got another source of water - physicists.
Laser Measure.
Plancks
Exactly. Use a laser measure to cut a plank, then use that for reference!
deleted by creator
Who said Pi is infinite? If we take Pi as base unit, it is exactly 1. No fraction, perfectly round.
Now everything else requires an infinite precision.
I’m confused, how is pi used as a unit? My understanding is that it’s a number
1 is also a number, a number we chose by convention to be a base unit for all numbers. You can break down every number down to this unit.
20 is 20 1s. 1.5 is 1 and a half 1.
If we have Pi as a unit, circumference of a circle would be radius*2 of Pi units. But everything that doesn’t involve Pi would be a fraction of Pi, e.g. a normal 1 is roughly 1/3 of Pi units, 314 is roughly 100 Pi units, etc. etc.
6π is an acceptable answer for finding the circumference of a circle with a radius of 3 units of something.
Also
Pi = 4! = 4×3×2 = 24
Omfg why can’t I figure out why this does not work. Help me pls
I think it’s because no matter how many corners you cut it’s still an approximation of the
circumferencearea. There’s just an infinite amount of corners that sticks outThere’s just an infinite amount of corners that sticks out
Yes. And that means that it is not an approximation of the circumference.
But it approximates the area of the circle.
True, thanks for the correction
It’s a fractal problem, even if you repeat the cutting until infinite, there are still a roughness with little triangles which you must add to Pi, there are no difference between image 4 and 5, the triangles are still there, smaller but more. But it’s a nice illusion.
Because you never make a circle. You just make a polygon with a perimeter of four and an infinite number of sides as the number of sides approaches infinity.
But if you made a regular polygon, with the number of sides approaching infinity, it would work.
Exactly what I was expecting haha(I mean the video)
The lines in this are askew and it’s mildly annoying
They’re there to askew why the logic doesn’t work.
Not true. If you define the circumference in terms of pi, you can define the circumference exactly.
“Find” not “define”
Putting things in base 10 is also a definition. Digits aren’t special.
Was going to say the same. Also π isn’t infinite. Far from it. it’s not even bigger than 4. It’s representation in the decimal system is just so that it can’t be written there with a finite number of decimal places. But you could just write “π”. It’s short, concise and exact.
And by that definition 0.1 is also infinite… My computer can’t write that with a finite amount of digits in base 2, which it uses internally.
So… I’m crying salty tears, too.
[Edit: And we don’t even need transcendental numbers or other number systems. A third also doesn’t have a representation. So again following the logic… you can divide a cake into 5 pieces, but never into 3?!]
Can pi be expressed with a finite amount of digits in another number system?
How about a pi based system, then pi is 1.
deleted by creator
You’re correct.
For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-integer_base_of_numeration
Possible, but then the diameter would be an irrational number
I don’t think there’s any technical reason we can’t count in base pi
Well we need an integer base number system…
“A base is usually a whole number bigger than 1, although non-integer bases are also mathematically possible.”
deleted by creator
That doesnt make a difference. You can find the exact circumference of a circle, you just cant express it in the decimal system as a number (thats why we have a symbol for it so you can still express the exact value)
Let’s say you got a circle with radius 1/π…
came here for this
Yeah, calling pi infinite makes me wanna cry, too.
If only mathematicians had a number for that. Ya know, the people famous for making names for things on average once per published paper, most of them completely useless.
Not if your diameter is d/pi. Then your circumference is d, where d > 0.
Check mate atheists.
Well now you can’t find the radius
Radius = d/(2*pi)
In the spirit of the meme this does not constitute “finding” the radius. There doesn’t exist a radius for which both the radius and the circumference are rational numbers.
Check mate matheists.
Ftfy.
Technically you can’t measure anything accurately because there’s an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 0. Whose to say it’s exactly 1? It could be off by an infinite amount of 0s and 1.
Achilles and the Tortoise paradox.
Joke’s on them, tears are too salty to provide hydration.
The circumference of a circle with a diameter of 1 cm is exactly π cm. There you have it.
m e a s u r e
Bah, the universe is too messy and disordered to be worth the trouble
Besides measuring it with a measuring tape.
Pi is 3.
Ah, the Euler identity. 3^i ^3 -1=0
Rofl :D Well, close enough, and about as sexy when a bit drunk.
Prove it.
Ahem. MathEmaticians.
