When will ATHEISTS LEARN?????
when won't atheists learn?
FTFY
How does this guy calculate area of circle?
it is not defined
Jesus christ that's retarded.
I hate theists
post the video i like to watch this kind of shit
Turn 360 and walk right out
1 * 1/2 * radius squared
So according to Wildberger the area of a unit circle is 1/2? Really? Pure math=trash
You don't need radians to calculate the area of a circle
He just defined one rotation as being one rotation.
How do you do it without using an irrational quantity?
by being irrational yourself
You mean turn 1?
Tau will never catch on because it started as a retarded idea which everyone threw away, and redefining it is fruitless cause everyone already threw it away. Fucking it up even worse considering people are now throwing away a decently sensible number because it's associated with garbage.
Great lose-lose situation. Good job.
This is not [math]\tau=2\pi\ \text{rad}[/math]. This is [math]\tau = 1\ \text{circ}[/math]. [math]\tau[/math] is for turn angle. A rational, logically sound angle measure. No """theory""" of """real""" """numbers""" needed.
Half pi didn't stick
2pi didn't stick
1 rotation wont stick
Eh, rotations will stick, I mean we actually do use them now already.
There's just no real difference between using degrees and a decimal, they're just different notations of the same thing.
One degree is just 1/360th of the circle, so if you use rotations instead then one degree is equivalent to 0.0027777... of one rotation.
Now, obviously degrees is much easier to work with as you are constantly using whole numbers, even if you go into using minutes as well, but it's still just another way of measuring the same thing.
most computer languages uses radians by deafult. a rotation is 2pi rad.
>writing tau out that far
>not just 6.283..
Actual autism.
no shit you dumb fuck
only turbo autists give a shit about notation. actually productive and intelligent people dont waste their time on something so pointless
This is not a notation issue. That's the tau=2pi autists. This is a serious issue about opposing the real numbers and bringing logic and soundness to mathematics.
What distance do I tracé over the circle when turning one turn angle?
>tau has only one limb while pi has two
>tau is 2pi not pi/2
MATH BTFO
nice b8
Maybe there is no such distance.
>brainlets don't know the circle is [math]\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}[/math]
But how can a circle exist, aren't they counterintuitive? Circle with rational radius length will always have irrational circumference, and circle with rational circumference will have irrational radius
But [math]\mathbf{R}[/math] don't exist, so how can [math]\mathbf{R}/\mathbf{Z}[/math] exist? And according to Wildberger [math]\mathbf{Z}[/math] and even [math]\mathbf{N}[/math] don't exist because there are no infinite sets, so that makes circles even more non-existent
Circles exist but "circumference" does not have a length.
Did he even define a length of a curve? I know about his quadrances for line segments, but what about curves, did he try to define length (or quadrance, or something similar) for curves? And if he did, then how, constructing a length of a curve involves approximating it with infinitely many line segments, but he can't do that since he doesn't believe in infinite processes.
And about his turn angle thing, what does it even mean, how can he define that without a notion of a length of a curve? He can define full angle, or 2π angle in non-retarded units, but that's all. He doesn't have any measure of angles a priori, because he's just defining it, and without relating the length of an arc to the radius he can't define any angle other than 2π (and even that isn't defined well)
>tfw wildburger taught at my uni and might still be around
do you not know about the rational parametrization of a circle nigga?
I know about rational parametrization of a circle in [math]\|•\|_\infty[/math] norm, but that's not what he's talking about
he's still teaching at unsw and posting videos of his lectures
Rat/Int
Which isn't homeomorphic to a circle.
And as said by Wildberger himself, there are no sets Rat, Int or Nat, because you can't take infinite bunch of numbers (assuming there are infinitely many) and close them in a finite object and label the infinity as something finite, which we have control over.
And assuming his other claim that there are only [math]10^{200}[/math] naturals (and therefore at most [math](2*10^{200}-1)*(10^{100}-1)[/math] rationals) then Rat/Int is fuck all and big shit and not is not even close to being a circle
>[math]e^{1i}-1=0[/math]
This has something to do with pi being irrational i assume? Explain for a brainlet
The points of intersection are [math]( \pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}, \pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}) [/math], which don't exist in wildberger's mathematics I think.
>But how can a circle exist, aren't they counterintuitive?
they go against weak intuition, but people like that should not be forced to learn maths anyway, it's animal cruelty.
his mathhistory series is fucking good
if we're going to measure pi from the area of a circle, shouldn't we use sqrt(pi) instead? that way the area of an equivalent square to the unit circle is (pi*r)^2
1 rotation does stick. We say revolutions per minute not radians per minute. OP is retarded as balls.
*sqrt(pi)/2