proof

pie equals four

>>8395979
written in base pi; pi is 10 just like any other number (n) written in base (n)
Thus it is rational in base pi.

>>8395983
therfore

>>8395992
(i) writings of numbers
and
(ii) values of numbers

are two different things anon, and conclusions can be made from (i) to (ii) (or the other way round) in very specific cases.

nice try though.

pi is 3 according to the bible.

File: Niven, Ivan. A simple proof that π is irrational. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 53 (1947), no. 6, 509--509.png (81KB, 651x785px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 651x785px

>>8395979

File: jerks.png (23KB, 602x52px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 602x52px

>>8396025
Proof of: the latter proof is shit.

Suppose this proof is not shit.
By elementary calculus, I prove 1=0. Which is not.
QED

Details are left as elementary exercise for all elementary brainlets in the elementary shitty board here.

>>8395979
In base-[math]\pi[/math] it is perfectly rational, namely 1.

>>8396010

CHECK MATE ATHEIST

>>8396122
You're such a pretentious faggot not understanding anything.

But in the alphabet
f=g
a=e
gg=ni
o=u
t=s
you are a genius.

See how alphabets change the names of thing.
See how names of thing do not change things themselves.

You're still a big faggot.

Pi / 1

>>8396025
I remember this one as well.
Found it on Wikipedia.

>>8395997
*therefore

>>8396122
You mean [math]x\cdot \pi[/math]?

>>8396036
It's literally just the product rule
Chill the fuck out
Learn what proof by contradiction is

>>8395979
But it's not.

>>8396134
>Yuu're ssill e big genius

File: 1423462511212.gif (1020KB, 318x212px) Image search: [Google]

1020KB, 318x212px

inf=-1/12

>>8396036
>ultra buttmad that his calc I class is called elementary and he can't understand the proof

>>8396636
no.

pi is rationial

It's just we haven't reached the limits of our universe's precision

>>8395979
lmao @brainlets itt

pi=2e and e is rational because it's a limit of the rational numbers (1+1/n)^n

>>8395992
I mean, yeah it's "10" but it's irrational "10." You changed it from just an irrational number problem into an irrational number SYSTEM problem.

>>8396336
therefour*

>>8396122
that's not even right you fucking rock

>>8395979
>prove pi is rational
>use proof by contradiction
>assume pi is irrational
>do a bunch of work
>accidentally end up proving pi's irrationality
fuck

>>8395979
Is it possible to draw a circle like shape with a circumference of exactly 3?

A number that doesn't end is a waste of TIME no?

c/d
circumference divided by diameter where both circumference and diameter are rational numbers

>>8397598
Yes if you have a radius of 3/(2pi)

>>8397636
Draw a circle with rational diameter and then tell me what rational circumference it has?

Do the same starting with a rational circumference and find its diameter.

>>8397648
i forgot that the diameter would be irrational. darn poop i will be forever brainlet

File: 7e7.jpg (62KB, 600x516px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 600x516px

>>8396025
>integral coefficients

Rational numbers are mathematical objects which are DEFINED to be ordered pairs of integers (one called a numerator, and the second non-zero integer called the denominator) which obey the set of rules that define a mathematical "field". We can put the rationals into a one-to-one correspondence with the **subset** of the real numbers you'd get by dividing the numerator by the denominator. Saying that you can make pi rational because you can write it in base-pi as "10" or "1" doesn't make it rational because there is no pair of integers whose real-number ratio would result in pi. If you want to express the value of two-thirds in base-pi, you will write an infinite string of digits, but that doesn't make two-thirds irrational.

>>8395979
here is my proof.
pi = p/q
pi can be defined by a finite number of digits, (decimal writing for example)
which makes pi rational
which is what we want
qed

>>8396697
Prove that pi cannot be written as the ratio of two integers in base pi.

>>8397598
Shapes that have an irrational measurement (like circles) cannot exist in the physical world.

>>8397987
I can prove that you saying "in base pi" is a proof of the absence of knowledge in your little pedant brain, thinking he knows and outrageously questioning others.

If you continue with this state of mind, you will never get anywhere but in a consulting company doing excel spreadsheets. I would even rather seen you as a baker - who has a heart at least.

>>8397998
Nice proof there.

>>8395979
Suppose pi was irrational. Then pi could not be written as a ratio of integers. However, pi is defined as the ratio of the circumference of a circle to it's diameter. Therefore, pi is not well-defined if it's not irrational, a contradiction. Therefore pi is rational.

>>8397994
Except measurement isn't physical so you're a fucking retard.

>>8397586
*they'refour

>>8398067
What the fuck are you talking about? A circle either has an irrational circumference or diameter, or both. Therefore, it cannot exist in the physical world.

Are you disagreeing with this or are you arguing about some unrelated bullshit I never said?

>>8398058
you have to prove that the circumference and diameter are both integers

>>8398170
Irrationality and rationality have literally nothing to do with the physical world you fucking retard. The reason a circle can't exist is because it's an abstract mathematical object, it has literally nothing to do with the division of circumference to diameter being irrational.

If I make a unit of distance that's 1/sqrt(2) of a foot, then anything that's a rational number of feet is an irrational number of my measurement. All measurement is arbitrary, just because you're talking about a necessarily irrational division inside a circle by necessity doesn't cause the circle to not exist.

>>8398184
>The reason a circle can't exist is because it's an abstract mathematical object, it has literally nothing to do with the division of circumference to diameter being irrational.

There can be more than one reason. I never claimed my reason was the only one.

>If I make a unit of distance that's 1/sqrt(2) of a foot

This unit of length cannot exist in the physical world. It's an undefined quantity.

>>8398190
>This unit of length cannot exist in the physical world. It's an undefined quantity.
No unit of length ever exists in the physical world at all ever you mongoloid.

>>8398192
Wrong. I can define my unit to be the length of an object that I see on my desk. The object has a true length and therefore my unit exists and is exactly the length of that object.

>>8398193
>this exists because i define it as existing
Really gets those neurons firing

>>8398193
The length of that object is not a mathematical quantity, it varies and changes, and can only be used to approximate. Once you put a concrete algebraic structure on top of it you've completely left reality and are in the world of abstract mathematical truth.

>>8398202
Are you saying an object that exists in the physical world doesn't have a true length? (as we define length)

>>8398205
Then we should agree on a definition of "length" before having this discussion.

>>8398207
No, not at all, no object has a true length. Nor does the mathematical description of these lengths bear anything at all on the existence of real objects.

Circles are mathematical objects. Length is a physical concept and also is a mathematical concept. Rationality is a mathematical concept. Everything about the circle, including itself, is abstract math. Claiming it can't exist because irrationality doesn't real is just a misunderstanding of math itself, you seem to think certain parts of math are "more real" than other parts which is absolute hogwash.

>>8398211
On the space [math]\mathbb{R}^N[/math], I'm using the Euclidean metric.

In reality, length is approximated by [math]\mathbb{R}^N[/math] with the Euclidean metric.

"True" measurements of physical objects is a fantasy.

>>8398221
I'm not saying we can know what its true length is, I'm saying it has a true length.

>>8398225
No, it doesn't. A car's metal is constantly oxidizing, changing. The change is imperceptible on a short time frame to the human eye, but everything is in flux, changing.

>>8398207
Yes. The concept of length is based on infinitesimal points which don't exist. In reality objects are made of atoms which are neither infinitesimal nor do they themselves have a fixed length. When you use a ruler you are approximating length, not truly measuring it.

>>8398231
Then it goes back to the definition of "length". Actually, it doesn't matter, because whatever you define it as, there is a true value for it for objects that exist in the physical world at a given time. I can then define my unit of length to be the length of the object at particular time.

>>8398233
See
>>8398225

>>8398246
>define my unit of length to be the length of the object at particular time.
But you're forgetting about Heisenberg uncertainty principle. You cannot know an objects position and momentum at the same time. So lets say you try to measure the length of a carbon atom at a specific time. To precisely measure it's length, you must know precisely the position of each end of it. But the better you know the position, the less you know about it's momentum, which means it could have some velocity. And if it has a greater velocity, it could be length contracted. So you cannot ever have a "true" length for the carbon atom, only an interval depending on how precise your measurements are.

Another way to look at the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is that you cannot know the exact energy at a given time. So if you try to measure your length at a given moment in time, it's energy will be uncertain. This could mean the particle has more velocity (which would result in a length contraction), or the particle has more mass (which would would mean the particle has to gain some volume and thus length (unless it increases it's density, in which case I'd argue it's no longer the same particle as it was before and there would be ambiguity about what exactly you're measuring and your definition of length would still fail)).

>>8398246
If there is a "true value", we cannot know it, and it shouldn't enter into any discussion that's not mysticism-tier. In any case this doesn't pertain to your absurd assertion that somehow irrational numbers aren't "physical" because of ???