>: > : > What confounds some is that pi -should- be an integer, >: > : > having no fractional component whatever, yet the most powerful >: > : > computational resources available can find no end to the fractional >: > : > component the formula returns.
>: > : Can you tell us _why_ pi should be an integer?
>: > I like integers better, I don't need a pocket calculator to work with >: > with them, that's reason enough.
Course, then there's e....and SQRT(2), SQRT(3), SQRT(5)...
>: But in your previous post you said that "pi -should- be an integer". >: You still haven't offered any reasoning why it "should" be an integer.
>My point is that pi -can- be 3 and, as I demonstrate, it probably -should- be.
Stop right there. You showed that pi -can- be 3 * a Constant. You showed that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter -can- be 3 if we measured diameters and circumferences using different scales of measurement. That makes the value of pi no less malleable.
> This would be true regardless of >my personal beliefs, so why are you so concerned about them?
I think he believes your zany way to make PI an integer was derived from the debate about the Bible suggesting that PI is 3. Of course, the Bible didn't claim to have any digits of precision beyond the decimal point, and so there's nothing really wrong with it saying PI is about 3.
Unfortunately, some people are convinced that this is a serious problem, and either insist the Bible is fallable, or (slightly harder to do, and much rarer) try to show that PI equals 3. I never thought I'd actually see someone try --- I thought it was a joke.
Oh, and incidentally, the circumference and diameter in question in the Scriptures use the same unit of measurement, which still makes the ratio of 3 inaccurate, despite your, um...interesting mathematics.
>: Don't get me wrong. People who use science to prove matters of faith >: are just as idiotic as those who use faith to prove matters of science. >: It can't be done. Any attempt either way just makes one look foolish >: and keeps many of us on Usenet quite entertained.
>................................... My point here is that the value >of pi cannnot be used to prove much of anything; it's all smoke and >mirrors.
News to me. I guess that makes e and i equally smoke and mirrors. I should add that not even the Greeks, who were obsessed with the notion of commensurability, had such an ambitious goal. Of course, I don't want to discourage you. Rather, go to it! I'm sure the folks here at sci.math will have a number of engaging questions for you.
,oooooooo8 o firstname.lastname@example.org --- http://www.math.niu.edu/~caj/ o888' `88 ,888. 888 888 ,8'`88. 888 "I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of 888o. ,oo ,8oooo88. 888 this statement, which, unfortunately, this margin `888oooo88 o88o o888o 888 is too small to contain. And my F***ING word ____________________8o888'__processor won't let me resize it."_______________