Does PI Necessitate the Circle as Changing?

[Eodnhoj7]

When as a form relative to a non-circular form, is the circle changing through relative expansion or contraction as PI is not fixed measurement but a process of infinite change?

[mickthinks]

No.

Pi is not a measurement. It isn’t derived from practical observation. It isn’t a process. It doesn’t change.

[Eodnhoj7]

No.

Pi is not a measurement. It isn’t derived from practical observation. It isn’t a process. It doesn’t change.

PI is a ratio and as such is a measurement. The next question is given it's mathematically consistent nature of being infinite and the progressive observation of it resulting in progressive change, what is the nature of the infinite in relation to finite observation?

[Impenitent]

consistency is an unmeasurable attribute

-Imp

[mickthinks]

PI is a ratio and as such is a measurement.

Ratios are not necessarily measured. For example, the ratio of eyes to noses on a typical human face is 2. Nobody has ever had to get out their measuring tape or scales or stopwatch to establish that. Who told you that ratios are measurements, and why’d you believe them?

[Eodnhoj7]

PI is a ratio and as such is a measurement.

Ratios are not necessarily measured. For example, the ratio of eyes to noses on a typical human face is 2. Nobody has ever had to get out their measuring tape or scales or stopwatch to establish that. Who told you that ratios are measurements, and why’d you believe them?

Ratios are a distinction, a distinction is measurement.

[mickthinks]

Ratios are distinctions in what sense? I’m guessing the sense here is the “non-“ kind.

And distinctions are not measurements in any conceivable sense.

But apart from that, I’m with you, dude!

[Impenitent]

the louder the ratios, the better

-Imp

[Eodnhoj7]

Ratios are distinctions in what sense? I’m guessing the sense here is the “non-“ kind.

And distinctions are not measurements in any conceivable sense.

But apart from that, I’m with you, dude!

The observation of a relationship, a connection. Pi is the connection of the interior of a circle to the outer.

I think there is an acid trip approach to this question where it could be argued that the circle is actually changing and pi proves it...I am just too lazy to play the rhetorical game with ai...will get to it eventually and post it when I do.

Infinity is quite an oddity...conceptually speaking...fascinating and scary at the same time.

Where there is a meditation induced psychosis there is a way....maybe...or not...or maybe...yes...sure...we will go with a "yes"....at least that is what the leperchauns are saying and why should they be doubted when they carry gold? That means their friendly right? Well maybe not too casinos but that is besides the point...

[mickthinks]

That response is so nonsequitous and incoherent, nhoj, it’s hard to avoid the feeling that you have given up trying to make sense. I think you have realised that you don’t know what you are trying to say.

Pi is not a connection of the interior of a circle to the outer. It’s a number, a mathematical constant representing the unvarying ratio between the diameter and circumference of all circles.

I think there is an acid trip approach to this question where it could be argued that the circle is actually changing and pi proves it.

Given that that is what you have been arguing in this thread, this looks very much like a tacit admission that you are trying to do philosophy of mathematics while tripping. That’s a surefire route to comic failure.

[Eodnhoj7]

That response is so nonsequitous and incoherent, nhoj, it’s hard to avoid the feeling that you have given up trying to make sense. I think you have realised that you don’t know what you are trying to say.

Pi is not a connection of the interior of a circle to the outer. It’s a number, a mathematical constant representing the unvarying ratio between the diameter and circumference of all circles.

I think there is an acid trip approach to this question where it could be argued that the circle is actually changing and pi proves it.

Given that that is what you have been arguing in this thread, this looks very much like a tacit admission that you are trying to do philosophy of mathematics while tripping. That’s a surefire route to comic failure.

It was an attempt at humor...apparently it did not work.

Anyhow, PI is grounded in a line extending from the center of a circle to the circumferance. It is the relation of the center to the circumference. It is a line. Yes it is a number but the number is an act of quantification and it quantifies a line.

Given PI is infinite, and we observe continuous finite change as time progresses, while PI is constant it is never the same.


It is a paradox....potentially.


Dually given PI is infinite and unlimited the circle follows the same manner as pi is not a fixed number. Infinity is not necessarily fixed for if it were it would have limits and no infinite.

The line starting at the circumference and ending in the center could potentially be an infinite fractal like zeno's paradox. It reduces so much, due to being an infinite fraction as a fractal, that change might not be conceivable. I will address this with ai when I have the time.

[mickthinks]

… the number is an act of quantification

But numbers are not acts. Not in any way, sense, or form.

And pi is not infinite. It’s less than 4.

[Eodnhoj7]

… the number is an act of quantification

But numbers are not acts. Not in any way, sense, or form.

And pi is not infinite. It’s less than 4.

Counting and quantification are acts.

Is this a joke?

.33333... is infinite and less than 4.....

If PI is not infinite than what is it's full finite sequence?

[mickthinks]

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.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.