If a circle is a set of infinite points then why is its perimeter finite?

If a circle is a set of infinite points then why is its perimeter finite?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units
twitter.com/AnonBabble

The correct term is 'measure', and for the same reason [0,1] has finite measure but infinitely many points as a set.

But it doesn't have infinitely many points. Did you count them?

>A point may not be considered a part of a line.
>A true continuum is simply something connected in itself and cannot be split into separate
pieces; that contradicts its nature.

The fact that it has an infinite amount of points just means that you can pick any point and never run out of points. Think of it like this. If you had a chocolate bar, Ignoring physics, imagine cutting the chocolate bar into pieces. How many pieces can you cut it into? Well, infinity. There is no limit to it because there is an infinite amount of points between 0 and 1. Now, you still only has one chocolate bar to begin with. Same concept. The line has finite length, but we could subdivide the line into infinite pieces and call them points.

You couldn't cut a chocolate bar infinity times dude, just a lot of times, not infinity. You can NEVER cut one infinity times. NEVER. It is not possible and this concept of infinity you're talking about is logically incoherent.

Because circles don't exist

>You can NEVER cut one infinity times
how many numbers are between 0 and 1?

no, you can

Then you wouldn't mind doing it then, would you?

you can't count them

exactly. because there is an infinite amount of numbers

I want you to leave

Infinite is not an amount.

you're right.
it's a cardinality of a set.

This
If circles did exist then that would imply that the number 3,14 exists which is irrational so it can't happen

All shapes are made of infinite points, dumbass. That doesn't mean you can't calculate their perimeter.

> implying lines are sets of points

The length of the perimeter of a circle relies on the fantasy number "pi". Therefore it's perimeter does not truly exist and neither do circles.

Don't mind me, just writing shit down.

[math] \displaystyle \usepackage{slashed} \slashed{\partial} [/math]

Which set of equations govern everything we know in the universe? Is it really just these two (in natural units)?

[math] \displaystyle (i\partial/ - m)\psi=0 [/math]

[math] \displaystyle G_{\mu\nu}-8\pi T_{\mu\nu}=0 [/math]

If not, what other equation(s) need to be added to include everything? I guess you could argue that this could be added to the mix:

[math] \displaystyle H^2=\frac{8\pi}{3}\epsilon-\frac{\kappa}{a^2} [/math]

What does Veeky Forums think?

who keeps creating these shit-threads?
anyone with a three-digit IQ can answer that spontaneously

>tfw 4 digit IQ

I missed the mark, didn't I?

I'd like to think it's people with a certain type of humor. It takes a bit of creativity to come up with something like OP.

>It takes a bit of creativity to come up with something like OP.
This creativity is called “retardation”.

A retarded person wouldn't be able to come up with something like OP.

No, but Cantor did.

Actually, because the Planck length is the shortesmeasurent of length possible then there are a finite number of points along a circle's perimeter. Prove me wrong.

What if it's a mathematically abstract chocolate bar.

physics don't apply in mathematics

I loathe this planck length meme. The planck length is neither the "smallest distance" nor "smallest size". As far as we know there is none.

I'd like to believe that most physicists know that the planck length is simply the result of an old man's frustration with the mathematics of the infinitely small, but who knows?

>points have width
>hurr durr i trololololed you guys

im stuck in my lab doing data analysis for a meeting tomorrow before i head to china for a conference, but at least i have two girls going on tinder right now, too.

whats your excuse?

If a point doesn't have width then by definition it doesn't exist

It literally has no mathematical significance aside from being a natural unit of length.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

>[0,1] doesn't have infinite points
Go back to your basic proof class before you say anything else.

multiply something of zero length by infinity and you magically get a finite perimeter

I'd be more worries if points had width.

>multiplying 0 by infinity
>thinking this is a valid operation
Please leave.

Because circles dont exist outside of human minds

>thinking it isn't

look up the dirac delta function, kid

Math was a mistake.

>I wonder who's behind this post

Who's that guy?

you can if you don't stop

But they don't.

Are you all actually retarded?

Minish Cap was a good game but wow was 100% punishing. I'd rather trade codes between the Oracle games (Biggoron Sword ayyy) than get all those Kinstones.

if infinitesimals are real, then 0.999... != 1 because there is 0.000...1 in between

You can't have it both ways faggot

a circle is
-a set of ALL points
-must be equidistant from one point
-all these points must be on the same plane

0.999...1 is always smaller than 0.999...

>tfw 4 digit IQ

78.32?

>If a point doesn't have width then by definition it doesn't exist

Points don't exist, so that checks out.

Yeah, fuck those shells.
Grind for hours until you have 999 kinstones, and you get maybe 4 new figurines.

Isn't that a circumference?

>>A point may not be considered a part of a line.
>>A true continuum is simply something connected in itself and cannot be split into separate pieces; that contradicts its nature.

why does the action of describing something as discreet break the notion of it being continuous? spacetime is continuous in the smooth manifold model yet we have discreet forms of energy transfer on the quantum level. those two contradict each other yet here we are living it. explain that to me.

>china
Lol

CHING CHANG CHONG!

it's summer already?

Take calculus and find out, bitch! :D