Solid proof illuminati exists

but why is this wrong though where does the error come from?

distance =/= length

it doesn't matter how many times you iterate the process, you will always have corners touching the perimeter and corners separated from it.

1/inf = 0 |*inf
=> 1 = 0

nope, infinity would kill the corners easily.

the problem is that the process for chance of shape doesn't include a process for change of length, like a normal Lim does
so all you end up proving is: pi

When you go to infinity < changes to ≤

uniform continuity

The square approximation doesn't converge uniformly to the circumference, so the area doesn't converge uniformly to pi

>The square approximation doesn't converge uniformly to the circumference
Do you even know what the fuck you're talking about?

yeah

its the same reason why a sequence of triangular peak functions with equal area and decreasing width does not converge uniformly

the approximation does coverge uniformly (or can you show a point that stay far from the circle for any iteration ?).

The problem comes from the fact that the length of a curve is the integral of it's slope, and the slope of the approximation doesn't converge to the slope of the circle (even if the curve DOES converge to a circle, the slope of the approximation stay "far" from the slope of the circle).
Thus length(lim(curve)) =/= lim(length(curve))

>repeat to infinity
No such thing.

nobel prize incoming, well done OP

>what is intuitive shorthand for simple concepts
cut it out njbilderberger

youtube.com/watch?v=D2xYjiL8yyE

just watch this, OP

no, you don't know what you're talking about. it DOES converge uniformly. at every point, the farthest distance between the circle and the square is divided by two.