(Indeterminate, like me. Think outside the box, but when you step outside the box ... try to keep one foot in)
Hi Steven,The answer is simple, have you never been told that you can’t square a circle or is that you can’t circle a square:-) Best,Phil
Aye Laddie, Have Ye No Heard 'tis impossible to do either, the First Church of the Circle being forever at war with the First Church of the Square, though forever and a day there are those who wish to find peace amongst them, as I meself did as a wee young lad once upon a time? Tis a fairy tale and fable they should ever be united, much like the banshee, so sayeth Lebesque.Two jokes for you, good sir:So? Maybe it IS four! The Babylonians got it wrong when they guessimated it was 3, but at least they were off by ONLY 33.33 infinite 3's percent ... and that's not bad!andSpeaking as an Engineer, I have no problem with pi being 4, as we like to add on factors of safety. In fact, just to be on the safer side, make it 5.
Hi Steven,So are you suggesting from an engineer’s perspective the difference between 4 and 3.14159...... is a matter of tolerance? If that being true I would say it goes to prove that engineer’s are more tolerant souls then mathematicians:-) Then again when it comes to such things I like definitions which have the circle as the least perimeter required to enclose the greatest area, rather than it being the set of points in a plane that are equidistant from a given point. That being the latter only provides a means for its construction, while the former more revealing of its utility or more simply its quality.Best,Phil
Post a Comment