Nonexistent Justice

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Of course it doesn't invoke pi: it's simply stating that the circle's circumference ratio to its diameter is equated with pi, regardless of size. No invoking there.

Then your response to

"Oh and...what are the rules of pi???"

being

"Here's one...
The ratio C/d is constant, regardless of a circle's size. For example, if a circle has twice the diameter d of another circle it will also have twice the circumference C, preserving the ratio C/d."

Given you'd previously asserted

"Pi is a rule, complete with its own formula description..."
Was completely irrelevant 😞

Originally posted by Agerg
Um, no. I just think of circles as those round thingies.
That does not surprise me...amusingly however you talk as though we're meant to believe you are in some way informed on these matters. (your 'big' numbers argument in a different thread recently was cringe-worthy!)

At the core of pi is the idea that no circle found within the universe is p ea that no circle found within the universe is perfect"[/i]?!
wtf are you on about? 😕

For one who puts much effort into sounding authoritative on the matter, you seem blissfully unaware of the basic idea.

"A perfect circle is only perfect in imagination, because it is impossible to calculate the exact ratio of a circle. Since everything that is remotely circular in shape or movement requires the value of Pi, none of these things that humanity has created using Pi are perfectly accurate. Mathematicians and scientists simply decide that they are close enough, virtually perfect. "Pi represents a deep universal mystery, how is it that something this basic, this fundamental to math and to science, could turn out to be so incredibly difficult to pin down?" (Blatner, BBC) As it stands, humanities quest for perfection is only successful in theory with 2πr, also known as πd. The perfect circle is possible through formulated thought, but it is impossible in practice due to Pi's irrationality, and technically not existing because of it."
-http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2470444/the_perfect_circle_pi_pg3.html?cat=37

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
For one who puts much effort into sounding authoritative on the matter, you seem blissfully unaware of the basic idea.

"A perfect circle is only perfect in imagination, because it is impossible to calculate the exact ratio of a circle. Since everything that is remotely circular in shape or movement requires the value of Pi, none of these things that hum ."
-http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2470444/the_perfect_circle_pi_pg3.html?cat=37

plah!...Just because David Platner (no mention of his mathematical background) wrote a popular science book: "the joy of pi" intended I suspect for the enthusiastic ignorant (based on the informed amazon.com reviews) doesn't in any way bear out your argument 😞

"At the core of pi is the idea that no circle found within the universe is perfect"
is still utter garbage.

That we see pi cropping up all over the shop is indeed fascinating, but given that mathematicians try to transform difficult and seemingly disjoint problems into a form they've already solved, employing a plethora of tools which often rely on techniques using or derived at least in part from trigonometric principles it isn't quite as surprising.

I am not an authority on the subject of maths..I just know you're talking utter crap!

Originally posted by Agerg
plah!...Just because David Platner (no mention of his mathematical background) wrote a popular science book: "the joy of pi" intended I suspect for the enthusiastic ignorant (based on the informed amazon.com reviews) doesn't in any way bear out your argument 😞

"At the core of pi is the idea that no circle found within the universe is perfect"
is st ...[text shortened]...

I am not an authority on the subject of maths..I just know you're talking utter crap!

plah!
Oh, goodness me. I am rightfully shamed by your utterance of indignant rejection. Does it bear anything meaningful? Doubtful.

Scratch that. The only meaningful thing it does convey is the fact that you are a pompous ass, as we shall see in the examination of the rest of your feces-laden post.

Just because David Platner (no mention of his mathematical background)
In your haste to spew your invective, you couldn't be bothered to get his name right? It's Blatner--- with a 'b,' as in, 'bonehead.' Had you looked a little deeper, you would have found that he has also authored some 15 books on a variety of topics, including computer design and etc.. But that's really beside the point, isn't it? He isn't being cited because he is the foremost expert on pi; he was cited because he accurately and succinctly relayed the basic underlying point of man's quest in this area.

... wrote a popular science book: "the joy of pi" intended I suspect for the enthusiastic ignorant (based on the informed amazon.com reviews)...
"Enthusiastic ignorant?" Somehow, from the "informed" reviews you read on amazon.com, you came away with the impression that the book was geared toward the enthusiastic ignorant? Such highly "informed" reviewers as:
the emperor of ice cream
houndzoflove
nyghtwynd
are who better-informed your decision to label this effort geared toward "enthusiastic ignorant?" Well, with such heady expert opinion on board, who could argue with the conclusion, right? If such highly-regarded reviewers--- instantly acknowledged by anyone in the know as leaders in the field--- wrote so disparagingly of the efforts, who are we to contend with their conclusions? They did dismiss the work, right?

Lessee...

Average Customer Review
4.0 out of 5 stars (41 customer reviews)

Oops!
Twenty of the 41 reviews gave the effort five of five stars. Only two of the 41 reviews gave the effort a single star. Maybe it was those two reviewers who helped you make up your mind, in contrast to the remaining 39.

I am not an authority on the subject of maths..I just know you're talking utter crap!
Well, of course you 'know' it. All it takes is a predisposition coupled with a sanctimonious arrogance to see the crap spewing forth from everyone but the man in the mirror.

Well, of course you 'know' it. All it takes is a predisposition coupled with a sanctimonious arrogance to see the crap spewing forth from everyone but the man in the mirror.

Er... Oh never mind.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Er... Oh never mind.

Classic. When the God nay-sayer gets beat at his own game, it's the believer who is dismissed with eye-rolling and the disgusted head shake.

Don't walk away mad...

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Classic. When the God nay-sayer gets beat at his own game, it's the believer who is dismissed with eye-rolling and the disgusted head shake.

Don't walk away mad...

Beat? God nay-sayer? Disgusted? Mad? Dude, do you read what you post?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Beat? God nay-sayer? Disgusted? Mad? Dude, do you read what you post?

I know this one! I know this one! Um, yes?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I know this one! I know this one! Um, yes?

Well, I'll take your word for it. Please read this one again though, this time with brain engaged:

"Well, of course you 'know' it. All it takes is a predisposition coupled with a sanctimonious arrogance to see the crap spewing forth from everyone but the man in the mirror."

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
plah!
Oh, goodness me. I am rightfully shamed by your utterance of indignant rejection. Does it bear anything meaningful? Doubtful.

Scratch that. The only meaningful thing it does convey is the fact that you are a pompous ass, as we shall see in the examination of the rest of your feces-laden post.

Just because David Platner (no mentio ce to see the crap spewing forth from everyone but the man in the mirror.

Freaky, most literate people can write a book, anyone can be interested in the history of maths. You talk to any layperson willing to entertain the subject of maths and chances are they'll say something along the lines of

"ooh maths...that's all about pi and stuff isn't it?"

This book may indeed be a well written history book littered with facts about pi etc... but the intended audience is the layperson, and written in a style that will draw them in and enthrall them (whilst avoiding rigorous maths that the masses have little stomach for). His other writings include "Judaism For Dummies"; does that mean his opinions on Judaism have more clout than a jewish scholar (from said scholar's perspective), say??? 😕

David Blatner is in no way an authority on this subject, and in spite of his passionate *opinions* of how awesome pi is, they carry no academic weight.

If you had cited a more credible body such as the the American Mathematical Society ( www.ams.org ), or the institute of mathematics and it's applications ( http://www.ima.org.uk/ ) or even wikipedia I would have had a little more respect for your rebuttal.
I suspect however, you typed some keywords into google and returned the first hit which agrees with your opinion. You are then so impetuous to state this evidence as "basic facts", when it is little more than the author's narrative.

So what if lots of people liked it? It might be a well written book for it's intended audience. When I said "informed reviewers" I meant those with a mature maths background as opposed to a 'heavy-weight reviewer'.
There is a popular gutter newspaper sold in the UK: "The Sun" ( www.thesun.co.uk ). Lots of people like this newspaper (often for the topless page 3 model) and I wager would review it quite highly if it was asked of them. That doesn't mean their 'incisive' analysis of world affairs should be taken seriously by anyone who has a reading age higher than 6.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Appearing out of man's imaginations necessarily equates with its non-existent status... and, yet, justice exists?

No it's the other way around, you got it backwards, man appeared out of God's imagination, yes justice exists

Perfect circles exist as a limit (as the term is used in calculus), not as physical objects.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Perfect circles exist as a limit (as the term is used in calculus), not as physical objects.

And your point is what? I didn't say God was physical, but man is though.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Classic. When the God nay-sayer gets beat at his own game, it's the believer who is dismissed with eye-rolling and the disgusted head shake.

Don't walk away mad...

I'm actually going to 'man-up' and apologise for my usage of the term "enthusiastic ignorant" where my intention was to mean "layperson or uninformed" but conveyed with irate venom based on the strength of your rebuttals.
The increasingly aggressive posts on my and your part was started with my reaction to your innacurate response to finnegan:

"Pi relates to the physical world: things which can be measured. It doesn't 'turn up' when required, it occurs as a matter of fact, a mathematical constant. By equating pi with justice, you are at least inferring that justice shares some of the same attributes, specifically relating to the universality/transcendence of the same."

Pi is a rule, complete with its own formula description. How so justice, exactly?

which culminated to

"At the core of pi is the idea that no circle found within the universe is perfect"

This is not a true mathematical statement and the justification for your position has been little more than opinion touted as facts. Yes pi has captivated mankind for centuries, and it is indeed a number shrouded both in mystique and beauty. But one reads this (given the previous discourse) as a supposed mathematically valid description of pi. More accurate would perhaps have been (with questionable relevance to the arguments which would lead to it)

At the core of [mankinds fascination with] pi is the idea that no circle found within the universe is perfect

Which would be an aknowledgement on my part that perhaps this is what you were trying to say all along, and I was assuming (based on the comment to which it was a reply) you were making a different statement. (ie: a mathematical fact)

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You probably didn't realize it, but you unintentionally reinforced the point that you're arguing against.

Pi relates to the physical world: things which can be measured. It doesn't 'turn up' when required, it occurs as a matter of fact, a mathematical constant. By equating pi with justice, you are at least inferring that justice shares some of the sam ...[text shortened]... same.

Pi is a rule, complete with its own formula description. How so justice, exactly?

As you remark in a more recent post, the debate about Pi derived from your response cited here. I am not a mathematician and I'm grateful that better informed people have contributed in a way that seems to me to support my little account. But my story about Pi was intended to illustrate one way in which I object to your argument over Justice.

People trying to work out how to describe and work with concepts like the area of a circle realised that there must be a regular relationship with its radius and the discovery of Pi as a solution to this problem was a piece of genius. Yet, although the material world can be described using mathematics, and although some aspects of the world can only be described in this way, it is a very brave thing to argue from this that mathematics is discovered and not invented. Some people do of course - I mentioned Roger Penrose because I read an impressive example which would distract me here. Even if we do take that step - that in this case, we want to claim that Pi does exist in itself prior to our discovery of Pi - we have huge problems and one problem is that it is pretty hard to define except in a circular (no pun) fashion - Pi is the constant value we use to find the area of a circle. Perhaps others have a better definition but I suspect it would be what I call an operational description - this is how to get Pi, or this is what Pi does. I may be wrong - interesting to hear. However this is why I referred earlier to Kant's belief that Euclid had discovered - found - the True and only possible account for geometry and why Non Euclidean Geometry is thought to have demolished that claim.

I do not think most people would care too deeply about the answer to this question. Some people would of course but we are a strange subset of humanity and do not harm children or animals in our musing. But if I encountered someone who wanted to make mathematicians look stupid by arguing that there is no such things as Pi then I would question what motivates this type of attack. I would suspect that the motive is not a genuine passion for Mathematics, let alone for Truth.

That is where I was leading with regard to your discussions on the concept of Justice.