Does PI Necessitate the Circle as Changing?

[Eodnhoj7]

Counting is an act. The result of the counting isn’t. Counting is not the be all and end all of number, nor is measurement. You cannot “count” to 1.5 and you cannot measure your height precisely. No matter how closely you examine the point where the top of your head aligns with the measuring-rod, you must at some stage give up on the task of quantifying the gap between the actual point and the decimal gradations of the scale (marked or interpolated).

You cannot tell me exactly how tall you are. That does not entitle you to claim you are infinitely tall.

The effect is tied in which a cause as what is counted acts as a transitional point of awareness through which other actions may occur.

One can count to 1.5 like this .1,.2,.3,.4....

The height analysis is faulty considering an irrational number is a number shrinking manifesting fractals to infinity. The progressively increasing fractions of PI can be synonymous to fractals. Zeno's paradox: a line segmenr occurs, than half is added, than half of that is added, so on an so forth showing the whole line segment as infinite yet in all practicality it is still finite.

Dually the transcendental nature of PI necessitates it as infinite. Even non transcendental numbers, ie irrational, such as .3333... are infinite. There are infinite numbers.

[Eodnhoj7]

You cannot tell me exactly how tall you are. That does not entitle you to claim you are infinitely tall.

I am willing to bet at least 7 Flash Danger Points that Eggnog7 is mentally unwell enough to take that as a challenge rather than read it as a counterargument.

I don't want to hear the number of times you touched yourself to this post....

[mickthinks]

One can count to 1.5 like this .1,.2,.3,.4....

Those are terms in an arithmetic series. Enumerating arithmetic series is not counting except in the special case where both the first term and common difference is 1. In other words, one is counting if and only if one is using the natural (aka “counting”) numbers.

[Eodnhoj7]

One can count to 1.5 like this .1,.2,.3,.4....

Those are terms in an arithmetic series. Enumerating arithmetic series is not counting except in the special case where both the first term and common difference is 1. In other words, one is counting if and only if one is using the natural (aka “counting”) numbers.

Counting fractions is counting, as counting is the application of number to a distinction. Progressively counting through fractions is still counting. There are various ways to count.

[mickthinks]

When you say “1, 2, 3, 4, …” as you identify some fractions, that’s counting them. If you say “0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, …” that isn’t counting them. That’s naming them. Just as if you say “Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, …” you aren’t counting the planets.

[mickthinks]

The height analysis is faulty considering an irrational number is a number shrinking manifesting fractals to infinity.

What I think you are saying—what you’ve written there doesn’t really parse as English—is that height and pi are not comparable cases because pi is irrational and height is not.

But your actual height is a member of the set of real numbers and although some of the real numbers are rational, there is zero chance that your height is one of them. In other words, your height is irrational too, like pi.

But this is beside the point because, from what you’ve said about 0.333 … being infinite, all I’ve done here is probably to persuade you that you really are infinitely tall.

[Eodnhoj7]

The height analysis is faulty considering an irrational number is a number shrinking manifesting fractals to infinity.

What I think you are saying—what you’ve written there doesn’t really parse as English—is that height and pi are not comparable cases because pi is irrational and height is not.

But your actual height is a member of the set of real numbers and although some of the real numbers are rational, there is zero chance that your height is one of them. In other words, your height is irrational too, like pi.

But this is beside the point because, from what you’ve said about 0.333 … being infinite, all I’ve done here is probably to persuade you that you really are infinitely tall.

Yeah I will be frank, I am seeing if it is possible to argue PI necessitates the circle is changing...rhetoric is a fundamental discipline and art within philosophy so bear with me, sometimes I disagree just to disagree, this context is not the case.

With that in mind, my stance is quite simple. Perpetual observation of PI necessitates a change in accuracy. One observation of PI is more accurate than another and as one is more accurate than another one circle is different than another as the circle under one observation of PI is different from another observation.

[Impenitent]

how many atoms tall?

how much taller when the position of the electron changes?

Star Trek teleportation devices would have to tell you?

-Imp