Mathematical proof is better than the scientific method for establishing fact?

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

You do see the r2?

r2 isn't pi John. Please stop talking.

John_C_87

@Nomenclature

r2 isn't pi John. Please stop talking.

You are correct again r ≠ Pi, r = radius and it is only a sign to tell is where Pi is located...

E ≠ Mc^2.... E ≈ Mc^2....

John_C_87

@Nomenclature

Your "chords" are drawn across arbitrary lines and even if this worked it would be a ridiculously impractical method of calculating the circumference of a circle, which is simply c = πd. 

First it is C ≠ πd. It is simplifide as C ≈ πd. c = πd.  is a lie.......I have been given no reason to believe a lie is neccessary.

No, the proper chords are not arbitrary lines they are precisely and proportional which is required for a ratio. The method of Pi is not invalid it is the chord used that is the mathematical error...

Why would I draw 4 lines when I only need 1?
You could then contribute to improve the accuracy of mathmatics.

You honestly just write the most utterly ridiculous and irrational things imaginable.

Sometime.........

I have a choice to hold as truth United States Constitutional right to search for the most perfect state of the union with established justice. Keep in mind with the number of complaintes openly made on the peoples connection to established justice accuracy is called into question.

Nomenclature

First it is C ≠ πd. It is simplifide as C ≈ πd. c = πd

John, stop writing nonsense for once in your life. The circumference of a circle is equal to pi multiplied by diameter, so the correct equation is c = πd. The ≠ means the opposite of = (i.e. not equal to).

And the correct word is simplified, not simplifide. The system will alert you when you make a spelling error by underlining your word with a big red line.

No, the proper chords are not arbitrary lines

That is exactly what they are. Since they don't pass through the centre there is no way to accurately measure their placement. 

You could then contribute to improve the accuracy of mathmatics

Mathematics is perfectly accurate. It is you who is inaccurate and, frankly, delusional. 

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

r = radius and it is only a sign to tell is where Pi is located

Pi isn't located anywhere buddy. It's a ratio.

John_C_87

Nomenclature said:

@John_C_87

r = radius and it is only a sign to tell is where Pi is located

Pi isn't located anywhere buddy. It's a ratio.

No, Pi is an appoximation.........
Ratios are precise..............
Approximations are not precise....

That is exactly what they are. Since they don't pass through the centre there is no way to accurately measure their placement. 

Do you even know calculus............there is no easy way to calculate the precise length of the four lines that are each 1/4 of the circumference length.....

Sine, Cosine, Tangent, explained and with Examples and practice identifying opposite, adjacent sides and hypotenuse (mathwarehouse.com)

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

No, Pi is an appoximation.

No it isn't for goodness sake. Pi is the precise ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle or a sphere. It must be expressed as an approximation in math because its value is an irrational number.

Do you even know calculus

I'm finished with this conversation. Have a nice day.

John_C_87

John, stop writing nonsense for once in your life. The circumference of a circle is equal to pi multiplied by diameter, so the correct equation is c = πd. The ≠ means the opposite of = (i.e. not equal to).

No circumfernce is not equal to the chord named diameter multiplide by Pi. The short cut used by trying to multiply the diameter by Pi is invalid....Pi is invalid anything calucalted with it an appoximation. Mabe you should go old school and just Soh Cah Toa the correct chord length out using known angles.......

Dee

@John_C_87

No circumfernce is not equal to the chord named diameter multiplide by Pi. The short cut used by trying to multiply the diameter by Pi is invalid....Pi is invalid anything calucalted with it an appoximation. Mabe you should go old school and just Soh Cah Toa the correct chord length out using known angles.......

Thanks for clearing that up John ......put your play helmet back on put away your crayons it time for bedtime......tonight's story is lovely fantasy about how Murica won the Vietnam war 

John_C_87

No it isn't for goodness sake. Pi is the precise ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle or a sphere. It must be expressed as an approximation in math because its value is an irrational number.

Okay I am going to go slower for you.... There is no precise ratio between a circles circumference and it diameter...Ever......The mathematical fact here is that not all numbers when divided can produce a ratio thee is no certanty all we need to do is just divide two numbers a get a ratio. There is an inherent risk and often the correct values to be calcualted by division must be found with advanced forms of calculus....

I'm finished with this conversation. Have a nice day.

You were never in this conversation...

John_C_87

Thanks for clearing that up John ......put your play helmet back on put away your crayons it time for bedtime......tonight's story is lovely fantasy about how Murica won the Vietnam war 
Try debating on topic please.....
Start with a link that might prove a diameter of a cirlces is the circles only chord. 

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

Okay I am going to go slower for you.... There is no precise ratio between a circles circumference and it diameter...Ever.....

Oh God, you are just so infuriatingly ignorant. Pi is a mathematical constant. It is always the same number. It never changes. Ever. 

The mathematical fact here is that not all numbers when divided can produce a ratio 

Argue with Wikipedia, John. I'm bored of trying to educate you about basic math.

The number π is a mathematical constant that is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

No circumfernce is not equal to the chord named diameter multiplide by Pi.

Stop denying the fundamental rules of math. It's pointless and just evidences that you don't know what you're talking about.

C = πd

https://www.math.net/circumference

John_C_87

@Nomenclature

Stop denying the fundamental rules of math. It's pointless and just evidences that you don't know what you're talking about.

No! it is a dumb an irresponsible rule......

I have no reason to lie about C ≈ πd... There is and was a means by calculus to find C without d or π

John_C_87

@Nomenclature

Oh God, you are just so infuriatingly ignorant. 

No i am waiting...!

Pi is a mathematical constant. It is always the same number. It never changes. Ever. 

Is that why i can be 3.14159 or a million digits long? Sounds like change to me.........Wait it is change!

Constant - a fixed value......Pi is not fixed.

A constant has multiple different meanings in mathematics depending on the context. In its simplest definition, a constant is a fixed value, such as the number 5. It does not change with respect to the variables in an expression or equation.

In algebra, constants are one of the types of terms used in an equation:

Constant (math.net)

cPi 1.5702 is fixed.......It is the result of calculus

John_C_87

Nomenclature said:

@John_C_87

No circumfernce is not equal to the chord named diameter multiplide by Pi.

Stop denying the fundamental rules of math. It's pointless and just evidences that you don't know what you're talking about.

C = πd

https://www.math.net/circumference

You are using a lie as a Mathmatic proof .......

your reason to do so is it is a popular lie, it is the most popular lie in all the world...............the act of performing the same task over and over again expecting a different result each time........is insane. You are literally trying to drive me insane....

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

You are using a lie as a Mathmatic proof

Then I suggest you write a strongly worded letter to www.math.net and lambast them for lying about math. However, the problem is that www.math.net is a credible source on the subject of math and you are not a credible source on the subject of math. 

your reason to do so is it is a popular lie

Math is not decided on the basis of popularity and math does not lie.

You are literally trying to drive me insane

No, I'm trying (highly unsuccessfully) to pull you out of your existing insanity.

Constant - a fixed value......Pi is not fixed

It is absolutely fixed, which is why it can be expressed with a symbol: π. If it fluctuated then nobody would ever know which value was being expressed with π.

I wish I could say that I have never met anyone who is so unapologetic about rejecting the basic rules of reality, but in fairness that would not be true. You are however, right up there with the worst of them.

John_C_87

Nomenclature said:

@John_C_87

You are using a lie as a Mathmatic proof

Then I suggest you write a strongly worded letter to www.math.net and lambast them for lying about math. However, the problem is that www.math.net is a credible source on the subject of math and you are not a credible source on the subject of math. 

your reason to do so is it is a popular lie

Math is not decided on the basis of popularity and math does not lie.

You are literally trying to drive me insane

No, I'm trying (highly unsuccessfully) to pull you out of your existing insanity.

Constant - a fixed value......Pi is not fixed

It is absolutely fixed, which is why it can be expressed with a symbol: π. If it fluctuated then nobody would ever know which value was being expressed with π.

I wish I could say that I have never met anyone who is so unapologetic about rejecting the basic rules of reality, but in fairness that would not be true. You are however, right up there with the worst of them.

You are in the wrong room for this post.......

Place a bid on provng Einstein wrong.........or don't... but please got on topic

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

please got on topic

I addressed your own quotes, buddy. Please stop being ridiculous.

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

You are in the wrong room for this post.......
Place a bid on provng Einstein wrong.........or don't... but please got on topic

Oh John, you poor confused soul. This is your other debate. Not the one about proving Einstein wrong.

It's time to put your crayons away and have a nice nap, good buddy.

John_C_87

Oh John, you poor confused soul. This is your other debate. Not the one about proving Einstein wrong.

It's time to put your crayons away and have a nice nap, good buddy.

It is a fine line between details.......Where Pi is the mathematical proof to base science method on we have the identical argument  in both rooms....In the other room however we are waiting for you, Dee or any one for that matter to display the test Einstein, Newton, any person using Pi for that matter uses to test If a diameter also known as chord can be divided by a circumference to make a precise number...

The error made in calculating the area of a circle or sphere is the same error which is used in Einstein’s theory,,,,,,, What I point out is that the theory of relativity can be solved just by changing the equal sign to a approximation symbol...So we can say with mathematical proof " Energy approximates not equals Mass times the constant of a speed of light." Until someone anyone solved the irrational state of calculating the circumference of a circle to its chords Einstein’s field equation would always be wrong.

The whole problem however is not that basic it is not only the irrational state of Pi by the object which Pi is associated with that causes issues Einstein mistakenly didn't solve before beginning his work. The other bigger and more serious concern is the idea that a circle is 360 degrees and has no zero when using algebra to test results is the biggest mistake. As I said earlier in another debate this places Pi, mathematics, and Science in an act of faith......

Yes I do not for the most part the world is mathematically incompetent already...

Yes, I know for the most part people lie as well.......

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

It is a fine line between details

Roflmao.

to test If a diameter also known as chord can be divided by a circumference to make a precise number.

No John, you divide the circumference by the diameter, not the diameter by the circumference.

Sigh...

Dee

@John_C_87

In every finitely generated group with a single defining relation thats purely Hopfian, attributing
For example the group z (1) G = gp(a, b; arWa = b ) is non-Hopfian. Therefore  Is every two-generator non-Hopfian

group infinitely related?

Nomenclature

@Dee

Dee

@Nomenclature

A little taste of his own medicine 

John_C_87

Nomenclature said:

@John_C_87

It is a fine line between details

Roflmao.

to test If a diameter also known as chord can be divided by a circumference to make a precise number.

No John, you divide the circumference by the diameter, not the diameter by the circumference.

Sigh...

You devide the circumference by a chord...........
The diameter is not the circumferences' only chord..........

John_C_87

Dee said:

@John_C_87

In every finitely generated group with a single defining relation thats purely Hopfian, attributing
For example the group z (1) G = gp(a, b; arWa = b ) is non-Hopfian. Therefore  Is every two-generator non-Hopfian

group infinitely related?

Epimorphism - Wikipedia

Many authors in abstract algebra and universal algebra define an epimorphism simply as an onto or surjective homomorphism. Every epimorphism in this algebraic sense is an epimorphism in the sense of category theory, but the converse is not true in all categories. In this article, the term "epimorphism" will be used in the sense of category theory given above. For more on this, see § Terminology below.

I agee, Pi is the creator of abstract algebra....

John_C_87

@Nomenclature

No John, you divide the circumference by the diameter, not the diameter by the circumference.

Sigh...

We agree to find ratio we divide the circumference by the "chord" as the diameter is only one choice to make on a list of many chioces on circumferences' chord. The diameter is simple not the areas of a circles' only chord and the odds are a little over half we might get lucky and ever find a ratio by using division alone. It will never happen by using just one chord over and over again like a desprate insane fool trying to prove Einstein right by not just chaging the equal sign of the theory to the sign of approximately.

Again, the really progress of mathematics is in the writing of a algebra or calculus test to prove a result of dividing the circumference by its chord....That is what would having been the intelligent thing to do by Einstein.

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

John, when you're completely wrong about something, you'll encourage greater participation in your topics and better discussion if you simply follow up with, "Yes, I made a mistake", instead of random paragraphs of illegible word salad.

Nomenclature

Deleted (duplicate).

John_C_87

@Nomenclature
John, when you're completely wrong about something, you'll encourage greater participation in your topics and better discussion if you simply follow up with, "Yes, I made a mistake", instead of random paragraphs of illegible word salad.

A diameter is a chord......It is just the only chord which travels through the radius by.................act of motion.......................... 

The chord moving through the radius proportionally means nothing more than this named chord has the energy to place in ratio the radius by act of division......not the circumference...........

I am not getting the completely wrong vibe here a mathematical proof is better than the scientific method….. 

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

Have a nice day, John.

John_C_87

@Nomenclature
I will thanks.
You too....

John_C_87

The chord moving through the radius proportionally means nothing more than this named chord has the energy to place in ratio the radius by act of division......not the circumference...........

I know you haven't figured this out yet by a chord that doesn't travel through the radius may or may not have mass to hold the radius in ratio as well as the circumference by use of division....

MayCaesar

Pi is a precise real number. Since it cannot be expressed in a finite arithmetic form, many numerical calculations involving it have to utilize approximations to Pi, but Pi itself is not an approximation.

I am not sure what is confusing here. Which part of the above gives you a hard time, John?

John_C_87

@MayCaesar
Pi is a precise real number. Since it cannot be expressed in a finite arithmetic form, many numerical calculations involving it have to utilize approximations to Pi, but Pi itself is not an approximation.

I am not sure what is confusing here. Which part of the above gives you a hard time, John? First lets just say 3.14159 not Pi, real, not natural.
welcome........
the queston of arguent what is the diameter of a circles circumference in the most accurate description.....
Is it a chord in a list of many? Is it two radii?

MayCaesar

@John_C_87

There is no such thing as "diameter of a circle's circumference". Circumference of a circle with unit diameter is exactly Pi, and 3.14169 is an approximation to Pi.

Frankly, I do not understand 95+% of your sentences. Sorry.

ZeusAres42

The length of a Triangle is better than it's width in determining it's area?

ZeusAres42

/deleted

John_C_87

There is no such thing as "diameter of a circle's circumference". Circumference of a circle with unit diameter is exactly Pi, and 3.14169 is an approximation to Pi.
Frankly, I do not understand 95+% of your sentences. Sorry.

Show the algebra test that proves the proportion between the mathematical chord call diameter is proportional to the circumference as ratio. We cannot literally divide all numbers and form prices values to be used for ratios. Are you saying dividing any or all numbers give us exact ratio? The goal is to establish a mathematical proof or a scientific method to show proof.

Is the line through the center if a circle as fact (a) diameter, (b) two radii, (c) chord (d) all choices, diameter, two radii, and a chord?

What other numbers that make up this exact list of proportions.

Example:  is the list?  3.14159:1, 3.15159:1, 3.16159:1 3.17159 what is the increment of ratio that describes the exact detail of Pi.

Example 2: is the list? 3.141591, 3.141592,3.141593, 3.141594 what is the increment of the precise value in ratio?

If Pi is exact show the increment in ratio it defines please?

Wow! 95+% misunderstood, well I appreciate all your effort you put in. Thank you.

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42

The length of a Triangle is better than it's width in determining it's area?

Might say all three sides of a right triangle can be used to find both exact ends of a chord inside the area of a circle. Once outside the circles area a scalene triangle than can be used in recreating the exact circumference directly at 1:1 ratio making exact to scale copy of the circumference length a one side of the triangle.

John_C_87

@MayCaesar

There is no such thing as "diameter of a circle's circumference". Circumference of a circle with unit diameter is exactly Pi, and 3.14169 is an approximation to Pi. Frankly, I do not understand 95+% of your sentences. Sorry. We then let's jsut be thankful you understand what you do so far...thank you for joining the debate...your on Rock Star...

First is Pi a mathematical proof or scientific method? Then okay exactly.....show the increment or decrement of scale by method to back the claim? scientific method or mathematical proof.

All exact values have scale and precise proportion to prove as mathematical fact.Go!

John_C_87

PS......

Please remember Nomenclature is running in circles for not communicating or commitment to Mathematical Proof or Science Method used to confirm exact, precise, or perfect.

I made my choice clear for the purposes of debate.

John_C_87

@Nomenclature

The argument against Wikipedia does not exist.

“The transcendence of π implies that it is impossible to solve the ancient challenge of squaring the circle with a compass and straightedge.”

This is true when addressing a right angle however the use of a scalene triangle simply implies the straight edge was the wrong tool for the mathematical operation.

Not that it is a ratio but that it cannot be proven as an approximation due to the number is never obviously resolved. The answer to resolution is that the irrational state of the decimal means it will always be possibly resolved on the very next calculation.  

John_C_87

    The number π is a mathematical constant that is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter

No argument, as it excludes Pi meaning that it cannot be a solution of an equation involving only sums, products, powers, and integers. Einstein is still wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi

Consequently, its decimal representation never ends, nor enters a permanent pattern repeating pattern. It is a transcendental number, meaning that it cannot be a solution of an equation involving only sums, products, powers, and integers. The transcendence of π implies that it is impossible to solve the ancient challenge of squaring the circle with a compass and straightedge. The decimal digits of π appear to be randomly di randomly distributed,[a]but no proof of this conjecture has been found.

Galileo's law of odd numbers - Wikipedia

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

Einstein is still wrong

Einstein's field equations have been tested literally thousands of times in a wide variety of circumstances and they have never failed.

I've read through both of your debates and nowhere have you demonstrated that Einstein is wrong about anything. 

ZeusAres42

@John_C_87

Please tell me you are trolling? You can't honestly believe that the circumference of a circle proves Einstein's theory of general relativity wrong?

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: I Have Strong Doubts About Your Reasoning

@John_C_87
Mathematical proof and the scientific method are not mutually exclusive and serve different purposes. Mathematical proof is used to establish the truth of a statement based on logical reasoning and the use of mathematical laws and principles. The scientific method, on the other hand, is a systematic process used to gather and evaluate evidence in order to support or disprove a hypothesis. While mathematical proof can be used to support scientific theories, it is not the only means of establishing fact in science. The scientific method relies on experimentation, observation, and replication to establish facts.

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42

Please tell me you are trolling? You can't honestly believe that the circumference of a circle proves Einstein's theory of general relativity wrong? First I could be seen as trolling...I guess? The mathematical proof is not bait without bite of its own, as math prove Einstein’s theory as fact to start by simply re-writing GR first as it is explained in field equation as E  ≈ Mc ^ 2

It is not about faith ZeusAres42 " " What is believed " " A circles circumference is second in a list of proofs that can be used to prove the theory of Relativity is intentional "written" wrong. Where does the contradiction to popular opinion come from? It is this simple to prove take a string the length of the circumference and divided it into four pieces and those four pieces fit inside the circumference. The four pieces of string are chords of that circumference just as the diameter is a chord of the circumference. Now try divide the circumference piece of string by three just as the attempt that is made with the diameter divided by three, then attempt to place any of the three pieces inside the circumference. The three pieces of string no longer fits inside the circle circumference and is no longer a chord like the diameter was in the past. After the introduction to chords principle to the equation then is to be re-write E  ≈ Mc ^ 2 as  E + Mc ^ 2

NEXT:
The Wiki link from Nomenclature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi
Consequently, its decimal representation never ends, nor enters a permanent pattern repeating pattern. It is a transcendental number, meaning that it cannot be a solution of an equation involving only sums, products, powers, and integers. The transcendence of π implies that it is impossible to solve the ancient challenge of squaring the circle with a compass and straightedge. The decimal digits of π appear to be randomly distributed,[a]but no proof of this conjecture has been found.

By the way a mathematical proof of conjecture is made by numbers of Pi are not randomly distributed when the value is proportional to all approximation of a sum value of all circumference divided by diameter. The values between the different circles are always identical.. Are they not?

The third shared mistake of mathematical proof 
Pi is part of a list of natural numbers and has no reference of zero by degree to then be used in negative like our list of real number in linear algebra. This was suggested to be an issue first by Galileo's law of odd numbers.

I do not feel I am trolling...The question mathematical proof is beeter than Scientific method? A scientific methed had already been applied to Pi in attempts to prove it is fact.

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

I do not feel I am trolling.

You're writing long paragraphs of gibberish John. You keep saying Einstein is wrong, but you've shown absolutely nothing which suggests that.