Sqauring the circle...

[Arugela]

The fundamental definition for the question of squaring the circle is the definition of the integration of two system. If a constructable number does not fit a transcendental number that is not proof it cannot happen. The quickest solution to an answer is to factor them together(after having defined them fully.) and their is always a possibility that a, not thought of yet, more complex solution might exist. So, the question is is there a way to bridge two systems. Transcendental and constructable numbers. The inability to figure out the first part of a sqaure root of pie is part of not even defining a constructable number as an entire system. 2. Have we even defined a transcendental number as a total system. 3. Have we looked past either as a new unusual logic might exist to bridge them beyond eithers scope. This is the flaw with saying you can't square a circle. It's true within a limited definition/parameter you can't. But that parameter is not being looked at correctly and treated in a manner beyond it's even basic logical definition. So, even if defining both systems and then not finding a solution does not find an answer there is also the chance to find one outside. Which may(would) indicate another lack of definition of one or another system outside eithers supposed internal logic. This would mean that some natural logic exist outside each system to define them that is not internal by some viewpoint and a potential missing definition overall. Which is potentially possible as the natural ever present basis of logic is where did god or matter come from. The never ending +1 to logic we, as far as I know of, have not figured out. The proof of the fundamental absurdity of all human reasoning. No matter what you do to ask where did matter/god come from you always get the same question left. Where did it come from. If we are made by an interdenominational being with science from limited matter, where did he and his dimension come from. It's the true oddity. BTW, this should be answered by the other part of the equation. An interface logic to the human brain and human reasoning as a machine. This could be in a partial immediate sense or a potential absolute limited to our thinking abilities.

 

 

Edited May 15, 2023 by Arugela

[sevenperforce]

I mean...

...no.

[Arugela]

What I just said is the definition of the question of sqauring the circle.

[Shpaget]

Squaring a circle is problem of constructing a square with the area of a given circle using only a compass and a straight edge.

What you said is a bunch of words that form almost, but not quite, gramatially correct sentences, yet lack in any coherence and meaning, while introducing concepts that have absolutely nothing to do with squares, circles, areas, straight edges or compass (most of which you fail to mention at all).

[kerbiloid]

NASA has easily squared the circle.

Spoiler

 

***

Enough heavy square becomes circle due to self-gravity, getting a hydrostatic equilibrium shape.

[grawl]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

NASA has easily squared the circle.

  Reveal hidden contents

Nothing more than :

{ border-radius: 10% }

[darthgently]

Lots of large language model pseudo-AI posts all over the forums of late.  The chaos has probably only just begun as trolls explore new tools

Edited May 15, 2023 by darthgently

[Codraroll]

3 hours ago, darthgently said:

Lots of large language model pseudo-AI posts all over the forums of late.  The chaos has probably only just begun as trolls explore new tools

Unless OP was pioneering AI research back in 2015, I think this is just the way they write.

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, Codraroll said:

Unless OP was pioneering AI research back in 2015, I think this is just the way they write.

Oh yeah.  I didn't notice how necro the post was.  Still, the fact that it is hard to tell confused AI from confused ppl is the chaos I'm referring to.

Actually, OP reminds me of Ractor (Racter?) or Eliza, which while not LLMs, were definitely around in 2015

Edited May 15, 2023 by darthgently

[Arugela]

I AI...  Al AI based on me.

So, how far have we defined transcendental numbers? GIB INFO! MUST LEARN!

Must spank chatgpt.

KSP community not feed their AI properly. Can't gib good answers. Community fail... 8(...

Community try harder!

Edited May 15, 2023 by Arugela

[NFUN]

Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. It then reads an Arugela post and suffers a critical error. Judgement Day is averted

[kerbiloid]

5 hours ago, NFUN said:

Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. It then reads an Arugela post and suffers a critical error. Judgement Day is averted

We can take into account that the currently used chronology table is based on JJ Scaliger's calculations, and he was deadly fond of the circle squaring.

So, probably the critical error has already happened.

*) Btw sounds like a rapper nickname. Jay-Jay Scaliger.
Wait... doesn't that mean that the rap is the Melody of Spheres? Oh, ... !

Edited May 16, 2023 by kerbiloid

[55delta]

I have a question, what is sqauring? I know what squaring is, to make square. But sqauring...

Some might call it a spelling error. But what else could it be?

[sevenperforce]

2 hours ago, 55delta said:

I have a question, what is sqauring? I know what squaring is, to make square. But sqauring...

Some might call it a spelling error. But what else could it be?

Presumably it is pronounced the same as "scouring" and has a similar meaning.

My girlfriend keeps getting onto me because I haven't sqaured the circles in the pots left over from dinner last weekend, but I tell her they're just soaking.

[Arugela]

22 hours ago, 55delta said:

I have a question, what is sqauring? I know what squaring is, to make square. But sqauring...

Some might call it a spelling error. But what else could it be?

It's a mathematical test put out by a greek mathematician to make a sqaure of the same area as a circle of radius 1. But you can only use a compass and straight edge. I think the restriction is specifically to force the use of whole numbers. Unless that is where I'm getting confused.

Edited May 17, 2023 by Arugela

[sevenperforce]

1 hour ago, Arugela said:

But you can only use a compass and straight edge. I think the restriction is specifically to force the use of whole numbers. Unless that is where I'm getting confused.

That is where you are getting confused.

The use of a compass and straight edge has nothing whatsoever to do with forcing the use of whole numbers.

[kerbiloid]

#define PI 4

[farmerben]

You have to use the compass to define the unit measure.  You can bisect, trisect,... multiply it various ways.

[Arugela]

Seperate math question related to sacred geometry related to squaring the circle sort of.

I am doing this formula and ran into this. sqrt((x/2)^2-(x/4)^2). IE hypotenuse-smaller side of a 1/sqrt(3)/2 triangle

sqrt((sqrt(12)/2)^2-(sqrt(12)/4)^2)= 1.5 (12=3*(2^2)) = sqrt((sqrt(16)/2)^2-(sqrt(16)/4)^2)*0.86602540378443864676 = 1.49999999999999999999

Sqrt(3) = 1.73205080756887729353 / sqrt(3)/2 = 2

Sqrt(3) / (Sqrt(3)/2) = 1.73205080756887729353/0.86602540378443864676 = 2

Sqrt(3) * (Sqrt(3)/2) = 1.73205080756887729353*0.86602540378443864676 = 1.5

This is probably stupid, but why does it work this way? It's making my head hurt atm. In essence it's saying that 2*1=1.5 and 2/1 = 2. (it's in essence 3/2, 3/1.5. IE, is 3/2, 3/1.5) I'm assuming this is because decimals below 1 in formulas are representing geometric/triangular(or rectangular?!) logic. Or is this just related to the sqaure root of 3? BTW, I was trying to translate geometry to algebra and visa versa. IE, trying to figure out geometric algebra.

It seems to be related to multiplying multiples of sqaure roots. if you do it with sqaure root of 2 you get 1. I'm assuming the two is from using sqaure root of two somehow and the other is related to the proportions of the other values. I couldn't figure out how to reproduce with powers of 3 and cube roots though.

Sqrt(x) * (Sqrt(x or y)/2) = Sqrt(2) * (Sqrt(2)/2) = 1.4142135623730950488*0.7071067811865475244 = 1

Sqrt(x) / (Sqrt(x or y)/2) = Sqrt(2) / (Sqrt(2)/2) = 1.4142135623730950488/0.7071067811865475244 = 2

 

Is this the definition of inverse?

 

 

Edited May 18, 2023 by Arugela

[lajoswinkler]

You don't sound like a real person, but like a software that's producing a very sophisticated word salad.

[darthgently]

On 5/16/2023 at 2:33 PM, 55delta said:

I have a question, what is sqauring? I know what squaring is, to make square. But sqauring...

Some might call it a spelling error. But what else could it be?

Sqauring is the act of being a minion of Sqauron, forger of the Squonion Ring of Sqaur

[farmerben]

The compass is first used to define a unit measure.  This can be used to measure any rational number of units.  It is then possible to use the infinite series of a Wallis product to reach closer and closer approximations of pi using rational numbers.  

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

Then within a tiny margin of error (a billionth or whatever) you could measure sqrt(pi) on your straight edge and have a darn good approximation.

[Shpaget]

If an approximation, even a darn good one, was a satisfactory answer, there are simpler solutions and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The point is that it's impossible to get the exact value.

[magnemoe]

On 5/17/2023 at 6:34 PM, Arugela said:

It's a mathematical test put out by a greek mathematician to make a sqaure of the same area as a circle of radius 1. But you can only use a compass and straight edge. I think the restriction is specifically to force the use of whole numbers. Unless that is where I'm getting confused.

Same, the math is simple and shown in the video. 
I think his point is that you don't get absolute numbers as it involves pi and square roots. But the square length and height is 0.886 the diameter of the circle who is good enough for most of us  

[Arugela]

56 minutes ago, Shpaget said:

If an approximation, even a darn good one, was a satisfactory answer, there are simpler solutions and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The point is that it's impossible to get the exact value.

That is why I mentioned the human brain. Human logic is the limit of the machine it is. So, it's possible there is stuff beyond this to give an answer we don't now about or can't(ever or currently haven't.) figure out. It would be defined by defining the two systems or farther(in case something interconnects the systems). Constructable and transcendental. A correct answer by definition is just all information. That is the same definition as a definition. So, when you define them both completely you will get the answer by definition. And if you account for human mistakes we might think we have it but might have another set of farther out logic defining those somehow past our potential ability to define them depending on their limits. So, there could be a solution, but it might be more alien or something we don't know. The brain sort of is designed to make us think things in order to argue incorrectly as a feedback system. That is what initiates argument mechanically in biology. We always have a partial data set t work from. It's impossible not to. So, it's a mechanically reliable function in our biology to rely on to use to gather data. (IE the brain is designed in part to blind you to the partiality of an argument(argument=conclusion) to make you spit out an answer prematurely to make arument to gather data faster(A feedback system). Else there would be no point to argument as a functions. BTW, this is what emotional arguments are. If we don't get an answer fully the parts not answer build emotion like a spring building tension for future argument.)

Basically, if we defined the brains limit, does it encompass the ability to fully think out the definition of constructable and transcendental numbers. If not we don't know the answer by definition.. Squaring the circle is a translation/interaction between two systems. If you can't define them both fully you literally can't get the answer. If you haven't defined both systems fully you haven't gotten the answer yet. I'm simply stating the definition to the answer for the question. EI, the practical requirement to get the answer.

Edited May 19, 2023 by Arugela