Archimedes' Dilemma: The Misunderstood Concept of Pi = 4

In summary: So dividing 1 by 3 is the same as saying that the numerator (the top number) is equal to the denominator (the bottom number) 3 times.
  • #1
JaredJames
2,818
22
http://www.lolblog.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/1290616506315.jpg

Just thought I'd share this. Don't know if anyone has seen it, but I found it rather amusing.

Disclaimer: I know why it doesn't work and am not trying to push this as some "new" maths.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
jarednjames said:
http://www.lolblog.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/1290616506315.jpg

Just thought I'd share this. Don't know if anyone has seen it, but I found it rather amusing.

Disclaimer: I know why it doesn't work and am not trying to push this as some "new" maths.

Oh dear god. Don't get me started again...

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=450364

And could someone please tell me whether I was wrong or right?!

I'm very insecure.

------------------------------------
NOT!

I just can't remember what that was called. Something accelerating towards infinity, infinitely faster than infinity. (hic!)

Sorry...

:)

 
  • #3
Ah, nevermind then.

Pity, didn't think it would be in the maths section, given what it is.
 
  • #4
I always respond to it with "Archimedes here. Yes, I do have a problem with it, *explanation about circumscribing and inscribing* you should view my work."
 
  • #5
1/3 = .3333333333...

(3) 1/3 = (3) .3333333333...

3/3 = .9999999999...

1 = .9999999999...



I have earned a place in the Math Hall of Fame! Btw, I, too, would have a problem if my name was Archimedes; what kind of parent names his kid Archimedes!?
 
  • #6
Mathnomalous said:
Btw, I, too, would have a problem if my name was Archimedes; what kind of parent names his kid Archimedes!?

I know, poor bugger named after a pump.
 
  • #7
Mathnomalous said:
1/3 = .3333333333...

(3) 1/3 = (3) .3333333333...

3/3 = .9999999999...

1 = .9999999999...

The same thing can be done by greatest integer function too...




WHAT!
THIS ISN'T THE MATH SECTION??
 
  • #8
jarednjames said:
I know, poor bugger named after a pump.

At least they did not name him Pi.
 
  • #9
I suspect that by using appropriate geometrical shapes and a similar limiting argument, you could prove the circumference to be any real number greater than or equal to pi and even prove that the circumference is infinite.
 
  • #10
jarednjames said:
http://www.lolblog.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/1290616506315.jpg
This reminds me of the following logic:

"So,
If she weighs the same as a duck,
then she's made of wood,
and therefore,
A WITCH!"

(Also reminds me of most political logic)
 
  • #11
Mathnomalous said:
At least they did not name him Pi.

Hey, now! That's the number that I put on my baseball jersey.
 
  • #12
What I don't understand is how does it prove Pi = 4!. I didn't get the factorial part.
 
  • #13
I always round Pi down to 3.
 
  • #14
jobyts said:
What I don't understand is how does it prove Pi = 4!. I didn't get the factorial part.

it's part of the trolling

it's saying that pi = 4, not pi = 4!
 
  • #15
Danger said:
Hey, now! That's the number that I put on my baseball jersey.

That is one loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong baseball jersey...
 
  • #16
Mathnomalous said:
That is one loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong baseball jersey...

What can I say? I used to be fat.
 
  • #17
Danger said:
What can I say? I used to be fat.

Infinitesimally fat?
 
  • #18
Mathnomalous said:
Infinitesimally fat?

His blubber was a fractal. :X
 
  • #19
I'll have you know, you young whippersnappers, that I ballooned up to 132 lbs. when I was playing ball. That extra 5 lbs. above my off-season weight was pure muscle.
 
  • #20
G037H3 said:
it's part of the trolling

it's saying that pi = 4, not pi = 4!

man I hope you just got trolled...
 
  • #21
Archimedes will be really be pissed off when he see his name appear with that face in the last picture.
 
  • #22
Stan Marsh said:
Archimedes will be really be pissed off when he see his name appear with that face in the last picture.

archimedes1.jpg


I see a resemblance.
 
  • #23
It's the spitting image of him.
 
  • #24
Mathnomalous said:
At least they did not name him Pi.

Have you read 'The life of Pi' ? Brilliant book!
 
  • #25
Mathnomalous said:
1/3 = .3333333333...

(3) 1/3 = (3) .3333333333...

3/3 = .9999999999...

1 = .9999999999...



I have earned a place in the Math Hall of Fame! Btw, I, too, would have a problem if my name was Archimedes; what kind of parent names his kid Archimedes!?

Sorry I don't get it? What is the problem? Why are you surprised at this result? Am I missing some sarcasm?
 
  • #26
Integral said:
Sorry I don't get it? What is the problem? Why are you surprised at this result? Am I missing some sarcasm?

I'm in the dark too...:confused:
 
  • #27
Is there such a number as 0.99999...98?

Where the "9" portion repeats forever but the last digit is an "8"??
 
  • #28
FlexGunship said:
Where the "9" portion repeats forever but the last digit is an "8"??

Doesn't that contradict itself?
 
  • #29
jarednjames said:
Doesn't that contradict itself?
images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTQx7khn063sdxeMG4k_iL8K2uwznpyTvn4mSqcUxkw7XA-hbIK.jpg

...no...
 
  • #30
FlexGunship said:
Where the "9" portion repeats forever but the last digit is an "8"??

Surely there are many such numbers!

Take for example 0.8 = 0.79999...

...
 
  • #31
My reasoning is that 0.9999... is NOT equal to 1.

Dividing 1 by 3 is an operation that never completes. You have to infinitely continue the operation. Seems to me that it is similar to dividing by 0. You can't actually do it. The operation isn't allowed or isn't possible. We just use "shorthand" if you will, and say that dividing by 0 is just 0 because it avoids the whole question of why you can't do it.

However, the fraction 1/3 represents 1 part out of 3 parts. Each part is a "Whole Part". 3 pieces put together equal 3/3, or 1 "Whole Thing".

If you slice a pie into 3 pieces, you don't get 0.333...x3, you get 3/3. 3/3 divided by 3 equals 1/3.

Thats just my take on it though. I'm sure many others would disagree. =)
 
  • #32
Drakkith said:
My reasoning is that 0.9999... is NOT equal to 1.

You'll only get this thread locked. Consult the other of 0.9999 != 1 threads on this forum.
 
  • #33
Jarle said:
You'll only get this thread locked. Consult the other of 0.9999 != 1 threads on this forum.

If my one post gets this thread locked, then so be it. I'm not that concerned about being incorrect, especially here in the General forum.

Edit: After reading a few posts, I'm still not convinced. 0.333... x 3 is also an operation that never ends. How can 0.3333...x3 = 0.999... if you never get a result? Am i missing some kind of rule or something in math that says otherwise?

Edit 2: I don't want to get this post sidetracked, so don't worry about responding to me. =)
 
Last edited:
  • #34
  • #35
jarednjames said:
http://www.lolblog.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/1290616506315.jpg

Just thought I'd share this. Don't know if anyone has seen it, but I found it rather amusing.

Disclaimer: I know why it doesn't work and am not trying to push this as some "new" maths.

That can't possibly be right, since [tex]e^{\pi} - \pi = 20[/tex]
 

Similar threads

New Subforum for GD : Science and Technology News
Replies
10
Views
2K
Why are groundbreaking new ideas often stifled in the politics of science?
Replies
6
Views
719
Logic behind the Lifting Water problem
Replies
6
Views
2K
News Post-Scientific Technocratic Methodologies
Replies
12
Views
2K
Physics Over what field I'm going to choose
Replies
3
Views
2K
Math About to get my Math undergrad -- What now?
Replies
2
Views
2K
I Optimization problem with multiple outputs: impossible?
Replies
6
Views
2K
Moving to industry from general relativity
Replies
3
Views
1K
Role of Concepts in describing observations of concrete objects
Replies
1
Views
3K
Regarding angular momentum axial thrust force etc. space stations
Replies
5
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top