I saw this on facebook But I don't get why it's true.

>>8627341
This would only NOT be true if the distance that the stones are placed apart divided by the circumfrence was rational.

>>8627341
There are an infinite number of points on the circle.

>>8627346
the circumfrence is only 81.6 feet though, that's not infinite

>>8627341
It's wrong, because stones aren't points and have width, so eventually they would touch.

>>8627341
that's only true for dimensionless stones tho

>>8627341
>But I don't get why it's true.
It's not.

>Shouldn't a stone eventually be placed on the original spot if the circle is finite?
Not for an ideal circle. with ideal measurements, but within physical bounds of measurement (let alone within the thickness of stones you can handle) you'll hit something indistinguishable.

The point is, pi is an irrational number, so it can't be represented by a fraction. Therefore, there's no multiple of pi by a positive rational number that equals a whole number.

>>8627355
I mean the problem probably assumes that you are dealing with idealized point rocks.

>>8627350
doesn't matter.

imagine it this way,
if I have any interval, even a finite one, I can always divide it in half to get two smaller intervals.

And then I can cut those intervals in half.

So however many intervals you think can fit in a finite space, I can always double that.

You know, I think this problem is aimed at tricking people who think the radius is the circumference.

I don't know how you could be that retarded, but yeah this problem doesn't make any sense grammatically, more information is required. When do I stop placing the stones?

truly you morons are retarded. i pity thee

>>8627341
it would only work if the stones had no dimensions, the meme is retarded.

>>8627404
it would be the same problem as with the radius, the only difference is that you're placing every other stone down. You can stop placing stones once two touch how about that.

>>8627344
>This would not be true if 2πr/r=2π is rational

Sup wildberger?

>stones larger than the planck length
>never touch

Ayyyyyy

>minions
What is this? Meme mathematics for middle aged mums?

>>8629031
>Planck length is the smallest length possible

When will this meme die?

>>8629082
People ask the same question about you.

this works because pi is an irrational number, but it only works irl if the rocks are infinitely small or the circle is infinitely big