User talk:Ricci4.4428828

I'm trying to start a usertalk page, but I have absolutely no idea what I'm doing!

Here's some information. Magidin (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Ricci4.4428828, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Value of Pi

The worrying thing is that the result contradicts all modern values for Pi. The value of Pi to 100 decimal places was known as far back as 1706 by John Machin. The value of Pi on the Windows scientific calculator is here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion is not that this number should "replace" the known value of pi. Rather, it is a reliable method for computing tight approximations for it by way of algebraic equations.Ricci4.4428828 (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Squaring the circle

You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. Two of our most important principles are verifiability and no original research. This means that in writing articles we rely on what reliable sources (such as academic journals) say, and we don't allow novel ideas which our editors come up with to be added to articles. This is especially true for surprising or exceptional claims, such as the idea that it is possible to square the circle, or that pi is exactly 3.1416, even though it was proved some time ago that pi is a transcendental number (which means both of these things are impossible). If you do want your claims to be added to Wikipedia articles then at a bare minimum you would need to get them published in a respectable peer-reviewed mathematics journal. Hut 8.5 12:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right! I don't know how Wikipedia works... but I am trying to learn.

But I am not saying that 3.1416 should replace pi, or that it is the true value for pi. I am merely stating that it is a very tight approximation for pi which is easily attained by simple algebraic equations & can be easily drawn with compass & straightedge. This alone makes it noteworthy & that's why this information is included on many math related websites; eg. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PiApproximations.html.Ricci4.4428828 (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One last note: It is not necessarily "impossible" to square the circle on Riemannian manifolds of positive (or negative) curvature. It's just that no reliable method for doing so has yet been discovered. This was specifically mentioned by David Eppstein in the main body of this article: "There exist, in the hyperbolic plane, (countably) infinitely many pairs of constructible circles and constructible regular quadrilaterals of equal area. However, there is no method for starting with a regular quadrilateral and constructing the circle of equal area, and there is no method for starting with a circle and constructing a regular quadrilateral of equal area (even when the circle has small enough radius such that a regular quadrilateral of equal area exists)."

And he later wrote to me: "I haven't looked at your web site but it is obvious that in a uniformly positively or negatively curved space there exist radii for which the circle of that radius has rational area, or has equal area to a square with rational side lengths (whichever you prefer), simply because this ratio varies continuously as a function of radius rather than being fixed at an irrational constant. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)"Ricci4.4428828 (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, John Machin had a far better approximation for Pi in 1706. Modern values of Pi are usually based on infinite series rather than the compass and straightedge method.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that & I totally agree with you... there are far better approximations for pi using various other methods. But it is the compass & straightedge constructions that are of any concern to us here in this particular article.Ricci4.4428828 (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

72.241.249.238 (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop putting your comments in the talk page of Squaring the circle in the wrong section. You are replying to a comment, your reply should be under that comment. Also, please stop using that talk page for general discussions about the problem of squaring the circle and for general discussions about your work. Both are inappropriate for the talk page. Read Wikipedia's talk page guidelines for information on what is and what is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Talk pages are not message boards or internet discussion fora. For general information about Wikipedia, see the links in the welcome section I have added to your talk page. Magidin (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ricci4.4428828, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Ricci4.4428828! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]