It's been several days since this blog's been updated, and for this the author lays blame entirely upon his sloth at the keyboard, as well as his remounting school work, and dearly begs for your acceptance of apology.
I stumbled upon something very mathematically odd recently, and found it to be worth note, which will be taken up here; it concerns the relationship between a circle's circumference (measure around the circle's outermost bounds) and its diameter (measure across the center of the circle.)
The term 'pi' can be expressed as C/D, where C is equal to circumference of a circle, and D is equal to diameter of a circle, and as all circles are proportional, this should remain eternally true, without acception. The value of pi will always be expressed as 3.141592654... infinately, thanking the perfect, utter roundness and infinitimal propert of this, about a circle.
Thus stated, if a circle's circumference, then, is expressed as C = Dxpi (diamter times pi) then it could also be stated as C = DxC/D (circumference equals diamter times (circumference divided by diameter.)) Now, to simpify this, one could divide C/D from both sides of the equation, to accost (C)/(C/D) -- that's circumference divided by (circumference divided by diameter --) = D. Sorry -- here it is again: (C)/(C/D) = D. Now, to simplify the terms, one could multiply both sides by D, to find the result CD/C = DD, or D^2 (D squared ( that is, to the second power.)) And now, in CD/C, the two Cs cancel each other from the equation, leaving the final result to be D = D^2, which makes very little sense to my perception.
That's saying the the diameter of the circle is equal to itself times itself. Terribly false is such a statement: a diamter, be it integer or decimal, or irrational, equals itself, or is proportional to another circle's diameter; never can it equal itself times itself all at once, leaving the author now to collect his thoughts concerning such an oddity, and perhaps mathematical fluke, and begging hope to leave the readers with some semblance of clarity on the matter for themselves.
5 comments:
?
Okay, I enjoy and understand math, but I must say that your equation would make much more sense if you were to explain it in person.
A very acute observation. Perhaps you can solve this problem: A^n + B^n = C^n
Where "n" is a whole number higher than 2.
I don't know how famous this problem is, so you might have heard of it. If you haven't, then here's a quick summary of history:
There was a man who wrote in his journal that he had "developed a simple proof" to prove the above equation, and before writing it down, he went and fought a duel. Unfortunately, the man was killed in the duel. Since then, a proof has been developed for the above equation, but it is by no means simple. It is one hundred pages in length and requires highly advanced math to understand. Therefore, we are still at a loss for the simple proof that was developed.
I'm very familiar with the Pythagorian Theorum, written by a Greek mathmatician appropriately named Pythagoras, which states that to find the length of a right triangle's hypotnuse, one can square the other two sides, and then find the square root of the resulting number (a^2 + b^2 = C^2, where 'a' and 'b' are both the lengths of the sides of the right triangle, and 'c' is the unknown length of the hypotnuse.) But I am unfamiliar with your proposal. What to the three variables represent?
I am unsure. All I know is that the problem is yet unsolved. I have puzzled over it for some time.
I forgot to mention that A, B, and C must be whole numbers as well.
That must not be the Pythagorean Theorum, then. But your proposition is facinating, and increased so by the inclination that the equation's solving is still in mystery; I'll research it.
Enjoy!
Post a Comment