No one on here has yet been smart enough to prove or disprove this

No one on here has yet been smart enough to prove or disprove this.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_π_is_irrational
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor's_diagonal_argument
youtu.be/s86-Z-CbaHA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

no one here has been dumb enough to prove it

> feet

u wot m8

kys

so then why aren't you smart enough to prove it?
fagl0rd

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_π_is_irrational

there's no specification or described parameter relating to the spiraling of it. it doesn't matter how many feet. you're changing your plane of where you are placing them if you are spiraling outward or inward as you do so.
question is dumb.
learn programming or something useful , you're not even good at shitposting

it does not matter if pi is rational because there are not infinite points on a circle

obviously the spiral is so that you can see them walking 13 feet without showing them overlap.

this is false. and actually pretty simple.

you're right, there are more
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor's_diagonal_argument

No fucking shit
C = (D/2)(pi)
Pi is an irrational number
You will only ever place a stone down at multiples of pi

I bet you're one of those people who tries to reduce the problem to absurdity by saying that "rocks are not points" in order to avoid actually proving that it is true.

Go back to engineering and let us mathematicians and physicists do the fun stuff.

They said every 13 feet. 13 is not a multiple of pi.

well... yeah, rock's aren't points, soo....

it is if it's the same size as the radius.

It's simple math fam

im not good at math not even if it is simple will u help me

i need to now this for a test on next tuesday

C= 2r* pi or C= D* pi dipshit

b 8

to express this, think of the circle as a line
when you get to the end of the line, you start back at the beginning
the line's length is 2 x pi x 13
You're placing stones every 13
So the stones would overlap when 2pi is multiplied enough times to equal a rational number

pi is irrational however, as stated here
so, assuming the stones have no quanitifiable size, they will never touch

Of course, stones do indeed have an actual size
But it's not a general size, it varies from stone
So they will touch eventually, but when depends on the size of the stone that use
(If you use stones that have radius' of 14 feet, then the first two stones will touch afterall)

C=2r * pi
C= 2(13)*3.14
C= 26*3.14
C=81.64

81.64/13 = 6.28
You can only lay 6.28 stones

This overlap will eventually cause stones to touch

Looks more like a spiral than a circle

Coorect. The statement clearly said "stone." if it had meant point it would have said point.

It is

/thread

The angle between points on any circle or arc is = 180L / Pi R. If L and R are the same the angle is 57.295779 (etc) degrees.

So if you put a point around the circle you want hit the same point twice.

that blew my mind and i feel like it shouldn't have since i do philosophy and have always held that infinity can't be equated to an actual theoretical number

Well if the stones were points that might be true but stones have width so you cant fit infinity in a circle without overlap.

Well you could argue that he didn't specify countably vs uncountably, so I would hesistate to say "uncountable infinity is bigger than infinity"

Infinity is a math concept not a philosophy concept. You can believe what you want about infinity but mathematicians wont give a shit.

the circumference is 81.63 feet, the lowest common denominator of 81 and 16 is 1053that's the number of times you'd have to go around before a stone would be placed on precisely the same spot. depends on how big the stones are if you want to figure out at what point one would touch another.

81 and 13*

This might help: youtu.be/s86-Z-CbaHA

wow, I didn't know vsauce did stuff about math. i used to watch it but i didn't recently maybe ill have to go back and try again and mabye it will help me understand

thank you, i think I will go watch this now

I believe the the rocks are supposed to represent points in this problem. Just label swapping.

yea because there is only 1 stone

No problem. It's strange that this is on here today. I only learned about this yesturday, then a friend today starts telling me about it. strange universe

i did maths before i did philosophy, i've held it since then
(i've never accepted the "0.9999... = 1" argument because you can't multiple 0.999... )

> claims to have done math before philosophy
> doesn't understand 0.9999... = 1

B TO THE 8

positions = [0, 13, 26, 39, 52, 65, 78, 9.318591006665372, 22.318591006665372, 35.31859100666537, 48.31859100666537, 61.31859100666537, 74.31859100666537]

the argument for proving 0.999... = 1 is accomplished thus
x=0.999...
10x=9.999....
10x-x= 9x = 9
x=1

The problem is that the second step involves multiplying 0.999... by 10
0.99.. x 10 =/= 9.99...
0.99.. x 10 = 9.99... - 0.0...9
This number is inexpressible though