We calculate the area of a circle by multiplying by pi. pi is an irrational number...

We calculate the area of a circle by multiplying by pi. pi is an irrational number. Is there no way to accurately calculate the area of a circle?

Attached: Pi.png (235x199, 5K)

It is the most accurate way to calculate the area. it makes sense when you understand where the formula comes from i.e. using polar coordinates to integrate.

Attached: pi is 4.jpg (350x478, 29K)

Everything is relative. If you start chasing decimal figures and perfect answers you soon learn that nothing *real* is any more accurate than it needs to be.

But if we calculate it using an irrational number, then the math says there is no definitive answer, even though we know the circle has a defined area.

If you want a definitive answer you can just change how you're defining it. Pi is also a ratio - define it in terms of that.

Pi is half a circle.
You are dumb.

You just end up with infinitely small edges, but the overall area will always remain outside the circle.

how accurate is accurately calculated?
you can calculate the area to as many decimal places as necessary, but eventually the difference will get too small to mean anything

Sure, but a square that is 4 x 4, has a defined area of 16. However, a circle never has a specific defined area, if the number we use to calculate its area is irrational.

Do you know what irrational means...?

it means what my ex was

Pretty sure I do, but please educate me if I am wrong. Pi goes on forever, so how can we define a finite area with a number that is infinite?

Pi could be any number in comparison to other variables in the universe. Actually pi is 3. It's the oldest variable ever. All other variables depend on it. It's not irrelevant. It's just 3.

It's the holy Trinity. Two units of area for the square inside the circle and one for the four round sides creating half a square.

You autistic dipshjits ever hear of "approximations"? Sure, we can't calulate the area with 100% accuracy, but we don't need to. Pi to a few decimal points is accurate enough for most needs, so we just use that.

At a day to day level that approach is more than fine, but mathematics requires actual answers.

Mathematics is all but answers. It's distraction to what's real!

Pi R round, cornbread R square.....didn
t yall go to college.

It means by definition it can't be written as a ratio. The only way to write it is in a fully infinite decimal expansion, which clearly isn't possible.

Just because the number has infinite digits doesn't mean its not a finite number. 0.999999... can always have another 9 added on the end to make it infinitely long, but it will always be smaller than 2.

You can make circles with whole number areas, but in that case the radius will be irrational. You just can't have both area and radius rational

Care

Yes. Do you know how to read? Because I didn't say anything about rational numbers...

It's the ratio of diameter:circumference. If OP *must* have a definitive answer, the he/she can define it non-numerically.

you're one of those people that quit when math started having letters in it, aren't you?

How do we calculate the exact length of the side if the line isn't even straight?
It's so that a circle is simply a point In the first dimension.
A three-dimensional dot is a ball.
A four dimensional ball is a hyperball. That's why Atoms blow up. Because they have passed the fourth dimension and come to an end. The energy released is the sound-wave of contractions in the area around the neutron

Can anyone tell me the exact area of a circle? I can tell you the exact area of a square, rectangle, or any other linear shape.

Eh sure.

Maybe want to brush up on that physics

should mention pie d is circumference

pie d which is 2r by pie r2 is volume of a cylinder

whic means pie r(2r) is vol simpd

If the diameter is two, then the circle is three in area

Simply put, some fucking nigger called Jesus self-feedbacked a length. Let's divide Pi in 2 if Pi is 3.
3/2=1,5
3/4=0,75
3/8=0.375
3/16=0.1875
3/32=0.9375
It all ends in 75.
There's proof that Pi is 3. Because if the diameter is 2, the square is area 4.
Then the circle inside the cube touching on 4 locations exactly is 3 because it always ends in 75
What's 3/4?
75
There's your proof.

Attached: download (1).jpg (144x121, 3K)

The point is that Pi is an irrational number, so anything you multiply it by is also irrational.

It's irrational because all numbers depend on eachother.
There can be no 1 without 0 and infinite.
It gives definition to 1.
Infinite/0=1
But also
0/INF=1

maybe but that's not a proper proof. i suggest proof by contradiction. it's just like 2 + 2 = 4 doesn't have a proper proof. you CAN prove it but not that easily.

not it you divide by 2

the exact area of a circle is pi*r^2
try to get past the notion that an irrational number is not exact. pi is an exact quantity, it exactly represents the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. the fact that it cannot be finitely represented in a base ten number system is irrelevant.

what do you think you're getting at? are you trying to say that PI is even?

Sorry. I mean
Inf/INF=1
0/0=1
INF/0=INF
0/INF=0

I think he's talking about the Wallis Product

Irrational numbers don't exist.
Pi has different value everywhere.
Pixels are defined as squares. We have to go honeycombs to understand circles because they align the least 3 to eachother. That's the least field an area can hold.
A triangle also can have the same area as a circle then. That proves Pi is 3.

that is not at all what using an irrational number means. an irrational number != imaginary number, it's simply a number that cannot be written as a simple fraction, nothing more or less. sorry you can't math, but try not to shit up the rest of the board's abysmal mathematical understanding with your ineptitude.

Corrections:
Any/Any=1
INF/0=inf^inf
0/INF=0^0=1

literally not what "irrational" means. jfc, were you all taught your math by an art teacher with a hangover??

Also. Steven Hawkins is faking to be paralyzed so that he can claim to be god when he heals himself. He's just waiting for the right opportunity when it already has passed.

2 can be expressed as 2.000000000 ad infinitum. the only special thing about pi is that those digits do not repeat and so you can't express it into any kind of simple fraction. it's not magic, it's not mysterious, there's literally an infinite number of these kinds of numbers and pi just happens to be a very useful one.

>But if we calculate it using an irrational number, then the math says there is no definitive answer
An irrational number has a definite value, it is just that we can't write it down because we don't have an infinite amount of material to write down a full decimal representation of it, so we use symbols instead to represent the value. You can use an irrational number's series or product representation to write as many digits as you want.

Irrational means unsolvable
What are you expecting?

you know he's dead, right?

So?

jfc. i try to remember that there's good in everyone and everyone has worth, but holy shit you people are making this very difficult tonight.

no. For a better understanding of why, I'd recommend looking into calculus and integrals. The "borders" are constantly changing, no matter how small of an integration you take, it still won't be 100% accurate. In other words, you can never get the proper tangent of any part of the circle. Thus, at best, you can only get an approximate of the area and circumfrence, it'll never be 100% accurate/finite.

irrational != unsolvable. do you need me to google this for you because you're throwing stuff around like a little bitch so maybe having some grown ups show you how to use adult tools like "logic" and "listening" could help you?

so many non discrete math types here.

an irrational number is one that is not rational. a rational number, on the other hand, has a specific definition that it is the result of dividing two integers. doesn't that make it more simple?
in discrete math, you define an even number as 2n, where n is an integer. an odd number is defined as 2n + 1, where n is an integer.

2 + 2 = 4 is not a proof because you have to define 2 as being 1 + 1. then, state that 4 = (1 + 1) + (1 + 1). therefore, 2 + 2 = 4. QED.