Mathematical proofs can be made for many concepts, such as .9999... = 1, for instance. Depending on how terms are precisely defined, pi is indeed 4. Mathis argues that his interpretation should me more correct than the traditional one.
Mathis argues that his interpretation should me more correct than the traditional one.
Yes he might and 99.99% (I exaggerate - about 50% of people couldn't care less) of people would say that makes him just a bit way out!
but hey, everyone to his opinion.
You really do spout nonsense! So the circumference of a circle is 4xdiameter!
And as soon as I get time I will prove that I can be just as ridiculous,
and prove that on the flat earth pi is actually not 3.14159265358979.... (Aforgot the rest - old age) but 2.0000000.
Anyone who knows anything about math knows that it is possible to make a mathematical proof for many things. There are proofs that pi is transcendental, that pi is irrational, pi is rational, and so on.
The proof that pi = 4 is indeed sound, depending on how some math concepts are interpreted. It really comes down to how the words diameter and circumference are precisely defined, what they really mean, and whether they are comparable concepts, which Mathis discusses in his paper.