User talk:Aetzbarr

value of pi
I've queried your recent addition to talk:pi. Could you respond on that page please so everyone can take part in any discussion. Murray Langton (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a recommendation: when you add a comment to a talk page, please conclude it with four tildas '~', since this automatically signs the comment with your name and the date and time of the comment. Murray Langton (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Aetzbarr and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to Circumference, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ; this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! TheConnorMan (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

No original research
Please read No original research carefully. This is a policy (like a law) on Wikipedia. It says that Wikipedia isn't a place to publish, present, or introduce original thought. If you have a novel idea, get it published in a reputable journal or other reliable source first. Only after that, can it be included in a Wikipedia article. In the meantime, please cease attempting to publicize your material here. Thanks for your understanding. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Also, see the blurb about Wikipedia not being for original research (however hilariously misguided, sorry to burst your bubble) immediately above. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 12:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Pi for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Additionally, you're continuing to add your comments outside of the collapse box, even though it was clearly put there to collapse this conversation as being off-topic. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 13:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Archimedes, you may be blocked from editing. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 00:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Archimedes would doubtless have said "Do not disturb my circles." It is an example of Poe's law because it is unclear whether this is meant to be misguided original research, trolling or a joke. Whatever, it is unlikely that the value of pi is going to be accepted as a variable any time soon. The theory is here. I think it is meant to be a joke due to the smiley face, but with Poe's law you never can tell. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no mathematical proof for a fixed pie. There is proof of a physical experiment, to a changing pi idea. Search YouTube "aetzbar proves" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aetzbarr (talk • contribs) 07:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, had a look at Aetzbar proves the concept of variable pi on YouTube. It is in Hebrew as are many of the comments on it. It shows an experiment where the value of pi is variable depending on the size of the circle. This well into WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE territory so I can't comment on it any further.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, pies come in all shapes, and they're delicious. On the other hand, pi ($\pi$, the circle constant) isn't called the "circle constant" for no reason.  Here's a short proof of that fact (the one you say doesn't exist):  If π is defined as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter (twice its radius, $r$), then one expression for that ratio is given by:
 * $$\pi = \frac{2\int_{-r}^r \sqrt{1 + \left(\frac{d}{dx} \sqrt{r^2 - x^2}\right)^2} \, dx}{2r} = \int_{-r}^r \sqrt{\frac{1}{r^2 - x^2}} \, dx.$$
 * Make the substitution $$u = x/r,$$ and this becomes:
 * $$\pi = \int_{-1}^1 \sqrt{\frac{1}{1^2 - u^2}} \, du.$$
 * This expression doesn't depend on $r$; in other words, it's a constant. QED.  Now, please also read all the various Wikipedia introductory links and warnings listed above, and pay particular attention to the stuff about what Wikipedia is and is not.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 12:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It occurred to me why this might be happening. With empirical methods such as Buffon's needle, you are dropping a real needle onto a real line in the real world. This is not the same as an idealized and hypothetical point and line as found in Euclidean geometry. There is a margin of error involved, and as a general rule, the smaller the circle, the more difficult it would be to measure its diameter and circumference accurately. This screenshot from the video gives two values of pi, 3.14 and 3.1425, which are around 99.92% the same (less than one part in a thousand). This could be accounted for by inaccuracies in the measurement, and Occam's razor suggests that this is a more likely explanation. Plus the fact that Euler's identity would be wrong and lead to answers other than zero if pi were not a constant. I've got nothing against people putting forward unusual theories, but they do need to be subjected to peer review.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Your calculation relates to straight-line segments. We are discussing a closed round line. Please present a direct calculation of a closed round line.Aetzbarr (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please indent your replies and place them properly; see WP:THREAD. My proof uses the formula for arc length (see the article there) and the equation of a circle in Cartesian coordinates, and it's about as direct a calculation as exists.  You can either accept basic math, or you can reject it.  But if you're going to continue to argue against basic, accepted math, then Wikipedia isn't the place for that.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 13:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * People used to calculate the value of pi by drawing polygons with a large number of sides; Archimedes used 96. The more the merrier, but this type of real world method will give only an approximation between limits. Nobody has a perfect ruler or micrometer. I can't comment on the details of the experiment but suspect that small inaccuracies in the measurements are being interpreted as pi being variable.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * People used to calculate the value of pi by drawing polygons with a large number of sides; Archimedes used 96. The more the merrier, but this type of real world method will give only an approximation between limits. Nobody has a perfect ruler or micrometer. I can't comment on the details of the experiment but suspect that small inaccuracies in the measurements are being interpreted as pi being variable.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * In the article Micrometer, the caption on the first image says "Modern micrometer with a reading of 1.639 mm ± 0.005 mm. Assuming no zero error, this is also the measurement." In other words, although the micrometer is reading 1.639 mm, the actual figure could be anywhere between 1.634 mm and 1.644 mm, an accuracy of 99.4% if this occurs. This is the observational error at its maximum points. As the article Observational error says, "Random errors are errors in measurement that lead to measurable values being inconsistent when repeated measurements of a constant attribute or quantity are taken." Before assuming that the entire book of pure mathematics needs to be rewritten, it might be worth looking at the accuracy of the measuring equipment.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Limit of a function. DVdm (talk) 08:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 12:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)