It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Pi is by concrete evidence identified as an approximation with a long list of other guesses both more and less accurate then Pi as ratio to the circumference of a circle. There is also a complete list of chords that make up the established circumferences of a circle. This means anything mathematically calculated using Pi is not scientific fact but instead an educated guess. Never to be proven by scientific method as right, in fact, the mathmatic proofs mean there was a flaw in the scientific method which was used to validates Pi.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Math can be used to prove concrete things, or applied to abstract concepts, but just because math works for something abstract does not necessarily mean that it exists. An example is infinite sets. Many math calculations with infinite sets just don't work. If you have an infinite number of rooms in a motel and you move everyone into the room number that is double what they are in and then you add an infinite number more of guests you can represent it as infinity + infinity equals infinity. But then the next day all the people who checked in the day before leave, but the infinite number of guests there before them stay. That can be represented as infinity minus infinity leaves infinity. So infinite sets can give gibberish answers and in other circumstances answers that make sense.
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
So I don't think we can say that either a math or other deductible proof is better than the scientific method considering these are two different things that do different jobs. However, math and other logical proofs might be used as part of the scientific method.
I am not say I am proving...
There are two different lists...
List A
List B
When all things described in list (A) cannot be in list (B)
When all things in List (A) are mathmatically precise.
When all things in List(B) are not mathmatically precise.
The science method will not change the mathmatic constructive proof...
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
I am being as nice as I can please do not take it personal when I say you being act the as there are no scientific hotel rooms with infinite sets of rooms. Is there? There needs to be a scientific method of validation to what you suggest…there is not… There are two list to which a number is part of or is not part of and the extent of any degree approximation is not a precise mathematical outcome. List
(B)
  Considerate: 57%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
The Hilberts Grand Hotel paradox dealing with infinite sets is a well known example of the problem with math and infinite sets. It does not originate with me. Infinity is a scientifically theorized state - which was once popular in the steady state theory of the universe, or with theories of eternal inflation which create an infinite number of universes.
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 99%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Is it a scientific method thought?
But...
I made this clear just_sayin there are two list.
List (A)
List (B)
There is no infinite statement of numbers the guest Pi is already in list (B) the approximation of Pi simply places Pi in competition with only other approximations like itself in any attempt at accuracy. List (A) always subdivides list (B) by its status as perfect precise ratio.
Thank you for contributing...
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 98%  
  Substantial: 17%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.18  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Some people just aren't good at math. Again, the two sets in the Hilbert's Hotel are really different sets of infinity. Let the first set be those that went to the even numbered rooms [2,4,6,8,10...] the other set filled the empty rooms [1.3.5.7.9...]. The two sets never overlap but are both infinite.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 55%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 3.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 53%  
  Learn More About Debra
The number are in List (A) or in List (B) All infinite is in (B) to which Pi is either < or > not =
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.46  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
The truth though is wrong analogy there is only one set of infinite and there is a limited number of rooms not guests.
List (B) is the infinte numbers in a relationship with each other is a state of precise pefection proportionally.
  Considerate: 98%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 69%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 61%  
  Learn More About Debra
Then tell me which number overlapped? The Hilbert Hotel has an infinite number of rooms. So which number from the odd numbers over laps with the infinite list of numbers in the even number list? Both lists go on for infinity.
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 65%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 58%  
  Learn More About Debra
I'm afraid I don't know what you're trying to say because your English is very poor, but the mathematical expression for infinite is
  Considerate: 67%  
  Substantial: 41%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.4  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 73%  
  Learn More About Debra
It is not a scientific method you are trying to use a mathematical proof to prove a constructive mathematical proof is wrong..
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 57%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.68  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
There is little no doubt in my mind that you can prove Einstein wrong at home with little instruction for under $100.00 of cost to you for supplies to do so...To be completely honest most people can do it for as little as maybe $5.00.
Thank you for participating and you have been a help...
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
Of course I am. You were discussing a mathematical paradox:-
Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel is a mathematical paradox named after the German mathematician David Hilbert.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel
It was a direct reply to your claim:-
There is an infinite statement of numbers, represented by the symbol
Are you aware that part of debate involves understanding when you're wrong about something?
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.72  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
Also, I would take Newton's work a step further and say that motion the subsitution for ∞. As any number above zero is a number in motion of mathmatics and is subject to Newtons laws of motion. But then I am replacing Newton's Law of gravity with a law of motion. Gravity is a force of movement in two directions of energy created by the three movments elastisity, modulation / Y / Young's Modulus, and reverberation / eco. G = E + Y + R
Are you aware that part of debate involves understanding when you're wrong about something?
We are not wrong....we are answering what is otherwise unanswered questions until we ourselves are left in a position of no longer having an answer to provide to others. For me, time does not live in the idea of A.D., B.C., B.C.E., C.E. only in the relm of Pi and in a relm after Pi for the resolution of linear time will only begin with the most basic correction of Pi as a math ratio from a mathematical approximation as fact / theory. I will die long before I aswer questions of mathmatics I have created myself with the resolution of ratio to cirlce circumference...
I am not wrong, I am dumb in an off the charts...........way!
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.58  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 78%  
  Learn More About Debra
By the way the reason behind the re-address / move of gravity as a law of motion is so it can be the direct link made in mathematics breaking down theoretical algebra and calculus. Pi is a staple of theoretical algebra.........Is it not?
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
You claimed there is no infinite statement of numbers, which I showed is false. You then tried to deflect and pretend we are talking about "the scientific method", when in fact we are discussing a well-known mathematical paradox. Now you are continuing to derail the argument with a further deflection to a straw man fallacy.
This is not debate, John. You are not debating. You are making false statements and then squirming all over the place when they are shown to be false.
Everything you have thus far written has been wrong and I have exemplified how and why. Even your use of the word "we" is wrong, because you represent yourself and only yourself.
I am beginning to suspect that the problem might be that you are at least mildly delusional.
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
This is gibberish, John. It makes no sense. Gravity isn't a law of motion. It's the curvature of four dimensional space-time, as theorised by Einstein, and is believed to be one of four fundamental forces present in the known universe. Newton's three laws of motion are not the same thing as his theory of gravity. You're getting extremely confused.
It's the relationship between the circumference and diameter of a circle. It has nothing to do with gravity or motion. Please stop this gibberish and create a debate about something you understand.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 82%  
  Learn More About Debra
You claimed there is no infinite statement of numbers, which I showed is false. You then tried to deflect and pretend we are talking about "the scientific method", when in fact we are discussing a well-known mathematical paradox. Now you are continuing to derail the argument with a further deflection to a straw man fallacy.
This is not debate, John. You are not debating. You are making false statements and then squirming all over the place when they are shown to be false.
You didn't show it as false you simply displaid a symbol other describe as a symbol fo ifinity....However, to preserve my point I still argue there are only as scientic method nine numbers to which a sequence of values are then equated. My piont is unorthidox...
Everything you have thus far written has been wrong and I have exemplified how and why. Even your use of the word "we" is wrong, because you represent yourself and only yourself.
I am beginning to suspect that the problem might be that you are at least mildly delusional.
psychology : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained desepit indisputable evidence to the contrary
It is you not me acting delusionable.....You blinked by laughing at a question that no matter how dumb it sounded only had a yes and no asnwer as boolean.
This is not debate, John. You are not debating. You are making false statements and then squirming all over the place when they are shown to be false.
This is a debate the prize however is not seen by you for it is to make mathematics better...I do not care if I am wrong......and that is the reason why..........
There is no squirming...List (A) is derived by proportion which establishes a period of rest in the motion of all numbers....List (A) is also derived by the use of chords which describes a diameter abused by the fabrication of ∞ expansion set by Pi, not me. I am making true statements and am treating you with a handicap as it serves my best interests as you are emotionally struggling with over 6,000 years of inconsistent mathematics developed by theoretical applications of a ratio written as 3.14159 etc.
  Considerate: 67%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.44  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 76%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yes I did.
A symbol which showed your claim was false. And the word you're looking for is displayed, not displaid.
You're writing absolute gibberish and haven't made a single legible point.
Numbers do not support anything you have said and, even if they did, would still not make your claim grammatically accurate. Claiming to be supported by abstract concepts or inanimate objects does not change "I" into "we".
Stop writing utter gibberish please.
  Considerate: 67%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
A symbol which showed your claim was false. And the word you're looking for is displayed, not displaid.
Show me one number past 10 that does not have a 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 in it repeatedly, I would concede to your corruption........there is not a infinite set of numbers... there is a presumed mass ∞ that you and others equate wrongly to what is to be some vast set of numerical values....believing what someone tells us in school ,without quesiton. We agree to lie and call this "∞ " infinity.....that is all....
Numbers do not support anything you have said and, even if they did, would still not make your claim grammatically accurate. Claiming to be supported by abstract concepts or inanimate objects does not change "I" into "we".
and a zero.......I think you have a issue with literal context of mathematics........just how set it really, really, really is….
So again, as a Boolean of false I agree that a value of number ∞ exists...... as a literal fact being true as Boolean there are only nine numbers, zero, and a list of letters.......your choice tell the truth or do we both lie? Tell me?
  Considerate: 66%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
Stop writing utter gibberish please.
No, you want me to lie more..........
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 32%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Stop wasting my time. Stop wasting your own time. Your claim was wrong and I demonstrated that it was wrong.
  Considerate: 67%  
  Substantial: 50%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 3.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 82%  
  Learn More About Debra
I have detail of fact.
1. A Diameter is a chord.
2.There is a list of chords that make up a circles circumference ratio.
3. The diameter of every circle is not one of those chords.
4. Pi is wrong when described in mathmatics as a ratio it is an approximation.
This is gibberish, John. It makes no sense. Gravity isn't a law of motion. It's the curvature of four dimensional space-time, as theorised by Einstein, and is believed to be one of four fundamental forces present in the known universe. Newton's three laws of motion are not the same thing as his theory of gravity. You're getting extremely confused.
If space time existed....which it didn't when Einstein made up the theory... it doesn't exist now as you defend it. To be clear, I am not confused I believe you are wrong in the idea that Newton understanding was limited to the world of physics as the law of motions was connected to mathematics and numbers themselves. Again, the devil in the details in mathematics space time / linear time, being the focus of what Einstein was trying to imply without complete grounding is calculus foundation. This is clear a understanding that Einstein would have been required to first establish a calculus theorem to describe Pi as a negative function which can be assigned to the opposite side of all equal sign placed in linear equations.
The proposal is Newton's law of motion in truth, as boolean, meaning the law is connected to algabra and calculus funtions in such a way as to describe in short hand a truth over how instead of describing genderic mathmatic funtions over and over like plus, minus, multiple, devide adn all algabra and calculus funtions of the time he could simplify our work . He could to himself simple describe a series of algibra functions tested by mathmatic proof as an of the three law of motion.  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
You're. For God's sake man, you're making grammatical mistakes which should have been addressed in junior high and you're trying to have a debate with me about advanced math. What is your malfunction?
Oh, Einstein made up a theory about something which doesn't exist? That's awesome. Completely rational.
Everything you write is gibberish.
You are more confused than a drunken rabbit at a disco for goats.
So you believe I'm wrong about something I never said, never implied, and don't believe? Again, that's awesome.
Buddy, you objectively confused the laws of motion with Newtonian gravity. Instead of flying off on a completely insane tangent which has nothing to do with what I criticised you for, simply acknowledge your mistake.
More gibberish.
Roflmao. What are you talking about you complete nutter? Pi hasn't got anything to do with gravity, motion, and it isn't a negative function. It describes the relationship between the circumference and diameter of a circle, exactly like I told you last time.
  Considerate: 60%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
Einstein’s first mistake is in general mathematics due to confusion between something as simple as ratio and approximation.
Einstein’s second mistake to which all of physics and you followed is in the failure to establish groundwork in calculus to support the use of Pi in algebra at all.
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Roflmao. What are you talking about you complete nutter? Pi hasn't got anything to do with gravity, motion, and it isn't a negative function. It describes the relationship between the circumference and diameter of a circle, exactly like I told you last time.
What kind of raltionship pricise of appoximation?
  Considerate: 54%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.84  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
You are the one making mistakes, not Einstein. It is impossible to confuse ratio and approximation. Ratio describes a specific mathematical relationship between variables and approximation describes the general act of guessing about something. You're continually writing gibberish, my friend.
Einstein's work has nothing to do with geometry or pi and so you might as well accuse him of failing to establish a groundwork for measuring the annual precipitation in Cuba. The things you are writing are very literally nonsensical.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
What kind of raltionship pricise or appoximation?
  Considerate: 99%  
  Substantial: 39%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 57%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.7  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
Unless Pi is precise every calculation ever calculated with it will be wrong.
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 67%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
John, listen to me.
Number one, pi is an irrational number. It's impossible to notate it precisely because it goes on forever.
Number two, neither Einstein or Newton's equations involve the use of pi.
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
So you believe I'm wrong about something I never said, never implied, and don't believe?
Again, that's awesome. We all imply the law of motion is connected to physics and not numbers and somehow you never said it ..
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 44%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
There are three laws of motion and at no time did I ever say, hint or imply that Newton's understanding was limited to the world of physics. You're inventing nonsense and writing gibberish. Please stop it.
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Number one, pi is an irrational number. It's impossible to notate it precisely because it goes on forever.
A precise ratio of a cirlces circumference goes on forever...
Number two, neither Einstein or Newton's equations involve the use of pi.
Really? look closely.
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.5  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
There are three laws of motion and at no time did I ever say, hint or imply that Newton's understanding was limited to the world of physics. You're inventing nonsense and writing gibberish. Please stop it.
Again, we all have implied the three laws of motion are physics related and we got this from translations, and you are not the worlds exception.
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
How to Calculate the Mass of a Sphere: 13 Steps (with Pictures) (wikihow.com)
  Considerate: 98%  
  Substantial: 63%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.4  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 28%  
  Learn More About Debra
The four big red line are chords and they are if too scale the precise length of the circles circumference....
They are not the only chords in the circle either....
Einstien's wong.......and so are you....
Take a minute get your bearing 1.5702 is not 3.14159 I write it as cPi...
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 82%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.24  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
There are infinite digits between 3.12 and 3.122, which is why nobody has ever accurately notated pi. The most powerful computers in the entire world can't accurately notate pi, despite calculating it to tens of trillions of decimal places.
OK. No problem. This is one of Einstein's field equations. The reason it includes pi is because fields are calculated as spheres, and the formula for calculating the area of a sphere is A = 4πr2. Newton's equations don't make use of pi, but you're right that some of Einstein's do -- namely those which deal with gravitational fields.
What you're getting confused about is that pi is a constant. Its value never changes. That means the accuracy of the equations it is used in can be verified both backwards and forwards. Hence, all Einstein needs to know is that a gravitational field is a sphere. He doesn't need to know the precise value of pi for his equations to work.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Pi isn't located anywhere in Newton's law of gravity. You've linked me to a site which shows how to calculate the mass of a sphere.
Newton's law of gravity is expressed as fg = g(m1m2)r2.
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 62%  
  Learn More About Debra
You're confused again. The circumference of a circle is the length of the perimeter. Pi is always equal to the circumference divided by the diameter.
You're accusing math of being wrong. Pi is a mathematical constant, used in hundreds of mathematical proofs. Your claims are ridiculous and supported by nothing.
  Considerate: 59%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
To be in line with fact there will always be two almost Infinite lines of numbers as both lines are short all values to be infinite so neither is infinite though no number overlaps as fact. The glass is always full and the person asking if the glass is half empty or half full is running a mathematical scam.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 64%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.78  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
They are both countably infinite.
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 45%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 78%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 55%  
  Learn More About Debra
You're confused again. The circumference of a circle is the length of the perimeter. Pi is always equal to the circumference divided by the diameter.
You are still confused. The circumference of all circles are equal to the chord which is always proportional.
You're accusing math of being wrong. Pi is a mathematical constant, used in hundreds of mathematical proofs. Your claims are ridiculous and supported by nothing.
No, sadly I am describing the human instruction of some mathematics to be wrong and the cause of a extensive liability on a level of gross negligence due to the overall size of misrepresentation which was allowed to take place.
  Considerate: 67%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.04  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Newton's law of gravity is expressed as fg = g(m1m2)r2.
The highlited values are spheres.......
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 34%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.3  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 99%  
  Substantial: 17%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 1.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
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. Why would I draw 4 lines when I only need 1? You honestly just write the most utterly ridiculous and irrational things imaginable.
No, you are accusing every mathematician who has ever used pi of being wrong, including Einstein, and you are doing so because you do not understand that the relevance of pi is the relationship it has to the other variables of a circle or a sphere, not its precise numerical value. As I just patiently tried to explain to you, there are many hundreds of mathematical proofs which rely on pi.
You are continually writing absolute nonsense and I just don't see the point.
  Considerate: 60%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 74%  
  Learn More About Debra
Oh, only masses which are spheres have gravity? Thanks for letting me know John. I don't know where I'd be without you.
  Considerate: 98%  
  Substantial: 45%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra