andrewas Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 A mathematical proof has to prove everything until it gets to the basic axioms, or refer to other proofs that fill in the gaps.There is no axiom that state that a triangle and circle have the same area if you set the radius equal to the height and the circumference equal to the base. This one is easy to see if you think about it, but its still not an axiom, so its a gap in the proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xannari Ferrows Posted February 21, 2015 Author Share Posted February 21, 2015 (Oh... fine. this is how a circle unfolds:If every point is kept to scale, as it is, the regional area will be the same. It's called Proportion. There is no need to explain this. In fact, if on variable is kept to scale, everything else will, which means it is the base of the explanation.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Iron Crown Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 The black lines are not equivalent in length, that's not proportional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSlash27 Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Xannari Ferrows, Everybody here is trying to tell you the same thing: What you have posted here is correct and nobody disputes it, but it's not a "proof". andrewas put it very simply and accurately:A mathematical proof has to prove everything until it gets to the basic axioms, or refer to other proofs that fill in the gaps. Not tryin' to bust your hump, that's just the way it is. Best,-Slashy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xannari Ferrows Posted February 22, 2015 Author Share Posted February 22, 2015 I am done with all of you. Apparently I need 50 thousand pages or something because no one passed 3rd grade. It's called reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K^2 Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 No, it is not. It is called measure theory, and it is clearly above your education level. This is a clever proof, but incomplete. You really have to spend a few years on calculus and analysis to fully appreciate why, and encounter countless (indeed, uncountable) examples where your "common sense" fails miserably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xannari Ferrows Posted February 22, 2015 Author Share Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) No, it is not. It is called measure theory, and it is clearly above your education level. This is a clever proof, but incomplete. You really have to spend a few years on calculus and analysis to fully appreciate why, and encounter countless (indeed, uncountable) examples where your "common sense" fails miserably.Give ONE example where this fails. I dare you.EDIT: No, don't. I've just shown this to all my Crescendo friends, and told them everyones' replies. Oh my god, we're laughing at you all.Jared especially. He's a mathematician on a level even surpassing myself. Of course, I'm always fascinated by the little things, but he focuses more on the bigger pictures.Maybe I should get him to come down here... If you can't even except professional reasoning from a computer, then there is a serious problem. Edited February 22, 2015 by Xannari Ferrows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K^2 Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 If I cut a solid sphere in two, what is the volume of resulting objects? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xannari Ferrows Posted February 22, 2015 Author Share Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) If I cut a solid sphere in two, what is the volume of resulting objects?It depends. Did you cut it in perfect halves? Regardless, you are left with the sum of the volumes equal to the volume of the sphere.(EDIT: A bit more mathematical, it is equal to this:(1.33 • ÀR^3)V1 + (1.33 • ÀR^3)V2V1 is equal to X/10, where X is equal to the fraction of the volume of the sphere for object 1.V2 is equal to Y/10, where Y is equal to the fraction of the volume of the sphere for object 2. X + Y =10) Edited February 22, 2015 by Xannari Ferrows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K^2 Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 And if I tell you that the sum can be double? Banach-Tarsky ParadoxSame way, a circle can be unrolled into something with the wrong area. Don't feel too bad though. Even as high up as Calculus 2, kids are basically told to ignore this. This is the sort of math you start learning if you major in pure mathematics or closely related field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xannari Ferrows Posted February 22, 2015 Author Share Posted February 22, 2015 And if I tell you that the sum can be double? Banach-Tarsky ParadoxSame way, a circle can be unrolled into something with the wrong area. Don't feel too bad though. Even as high up as Calculus 2, kids are basically told to ignore this. This is the sort of math you start learning if you major in pure mathematics or closely related field.We're talking about 2 different things. You're talking about the math, and I'm talking about the space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K^2 Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 The above applies to math describing our space. If you do not think math can be used to describe reality, your formula is useless. If you think your math applies to reality, then you have to apply paradoxes.You are just being stubborn now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xannari Ferrows Posted February 22, 2015 Author Share Posted February 22, 2015 The above applies to math describing our space. If you do not think math can be used to describe reality, your formula is useless. If you think your math applies to reality, then you have to apply paradoxes.You are just being stubborn now.Way to be a hypocrite.I am basing this formula off the fact that it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to change the volume of something in a closed environment. The Banach-Tarsky paradox is an idea. A concept formulated from inconsistencies.An idea does not apply to reality, unless it is given proper reasoning. This paradox does have valid reasoning behind it, but in a theoretical sense rather than a physical sense. Math does describe reality, ideas don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K^2 Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 And if I tell you that entropy increases because of this paradox? That it is the driving force of thermodynamics?You are seriously outclassed here. You keep talking about reason, but refusing to apply it, hiding into your ignorance instead. You have neither the knowledge of the subject, nor willing to apply basic logic to things. You think you know something, and insist that any argument showing you wrong does not apply to reality. And you think you stand for reason? You are standing against it and all it brings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B787_300 Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Thread closed. if you want proofs on how area is calculated for circles look up rigorous mathematical proofs. Also as per community rules, please do not call other users out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts