Oh, didn’t you say you weren’t interested in the value of Pi?

Posted on Październik 25, 2007

0


Lester Zick wrote:

Because I’m not interested in demonstrating the magnitude of pi but in
demonstrating its locus. Which I’ve done according to Archimedes
method
for limiting the magnitude of pi. And I’ve said this so many
times in so many different ways I’m beginning to believe that despite
the language difference you must be somewhat hard of thinking.

I know I’m somewhat hard of thinking. But wasn’t that a bit helpful
in the course of this thread?

16th Oct:
LZ: Not sure I’m being clear here, Rainer. Pi doesn’t „approach” a
LZ: circular arc; …
LZ: The problem we have is to determine the value of pi.

Oh, didn’t you say you weren’t interested in the value of Pi?
I checked the course of this thread and you must agree that at first
I had tried to find out about your „locus of Pi” and the „approaching”
idea. See above, where you say „Not sure I’m being clear here”.

There were mistakes on your side regarding the usage of „approaching”
as well as the usage of „transcendental”. You address the „problem to
determine the value of Pi” and at the same time you say you weren’t
interested in the magnitude of Pi.

And until now I don’t have the faintest idea what „the locus” of a
number should be. And there was not one poster here who seemed to
understand either. I am sure you are trying your best to explain
your wonderful insights, but it seems as if „best” wasn’t good enough.
So I encourage you: insights out!

Reklamy
Posted in: Lifson