You can't draw a perfect circle, hence they are not real. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fag.
Name:
Anonymous2006-04-07 10:20
ok.
Name:
Anonymous2006-04-07 11:37
>>1
Everyone else disagrees with you. Also, please define a "perfect circle", as most calculus texts define a circle (I'm paraphrasing here) as a shape made of an infinite amount of infinitely small line segments.
A circle is a fucking round thing you draw in a piece of paper
Get a life, nerds!
Name:
Anonymous2006-04-07 15:31 (sage)
Maybe, because a circle is a set of points equidistant from a point, and in the real world, i doubt any circle has EVERY point the exact same distance from the center, the perfect circle does not exist?
A perfect circle is most likely a hypothetical construction; in the real world, an amount of eccentricity is usually present.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-30 9:27
This thread needs to be further discussed.
Name:
QQQ 9.02008-09-30 14:48
Hey anti-circle fags! Google neutron star.
It's a perfect SPHERE, and that's good enough for me.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-30 15:44
No shit. Nothing in maths really exists.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-30 17:42
gtfo my /sci/ Thomas Hobbes
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-30 18:22
Circles (and every other geometrical figure) do not exist in the physical realm. But even so, saying "you can't draw it, so it isn't real" is retarded, not to mention a logical fallacy. For example, I challenge you to either draw Time or tell me it doesn't exist. Time, like a geometrical figure, is an abstraction, but it's existence is undeniable.
But anyway, physical matter cannot be infinitely small, nor can it be infinitely dense. Therefore, you can't have an infinite number of physical points in a finite space. Therefore, a physical circle is, by definition, impossible. Only in the abstraction of Mathematics is absolute precision attainable.
>>12
Actually, neutron stars are NOT "perfect" spheres. Firstly because of what I just said. Secondly, they are rotating. Rotating very rapidly. Because they are rotating, their diameter along the axis of rotation is considerably shorter than the diameter along the axes of rotation. Like the Earth, they are "fatter" at the equator than across the poles.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-30 19:30
Define draw.
You can't "draw" something that is exactly like yourself, but surely you agree that you exist.
tl;dr You're an idiot. It wasn't that long, or difficult to read. In fact this postscript is possibly longer. Too l
>>21
LOL
That's bash-worthy. "Guys, I realized something today. Circles aren't real." "Explain the unimportance of pi, then." "... damn guess I'm just an idiot."
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-01 20:11
>>20
You're just saying that because you're jealous of all the by my standard perfect chicks I've banged.
>25
Your computer can store and compute all real numbers?
Are you sure that circle on your monitor isn't off by a pixel?
I doubt anything in nature is perfect, mostly due to random perturbation effects. Furthermore, what really goes on at the quantum level? Are you really sure that "perfect circle" doesn't have some artifacts to it?
>>25
If in the definition of "nature" you include conception of things which, though not physically existent, are by virtue of analogy readily constructable. But I don't think you did.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-03 5:30
weird that we can't comprehend actual reality, but we can comprehend impossible reality
Yes, you are on your way into your inner mind. To state the procedure:
purchase a fine drafting compass.
produce a circle of radius 4 cm.
contemplate your creation.
sense that your creation contemplates you in return.
at that instant of mutual contemplation, you will enter the interior of your mind's image of the circle.
you will be in your inner mind.
>>44
the drawing is never as perfect as the idea of what a circle is.
the drawing is merely a step to focus your mind on the idea of what a circle is, and to provide an internal image.
perception is not external reality, but it is your internal reality.
do not be so concerned about the external reality of flaws that can never achieve a mind's ideal.
your mind's image of the circle will serve the purpose.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-16 13:00
Candeljack isn't re
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-18 0:22
SO YOU'RE SAYING PLATO WAS RIGHT
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-18 3:34
You can't draw them, but they are still real because they are a concept.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-18 3:36
Intangible but still real, dumbass.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-20 0:31
Plato's Theory of Forms asserts that Forms (or Ideas), and not the material world of change known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality. Plato spoke of forms (sometimes capitalized in translations: The Forms) in formulating his solution to the problem of universals.
Plato postulated a world of ideal Forms, which he admitted were impossible to know. Nevertheless he formulated a very specific description of that world, which did not match his metaphysical principles. Corresponding to the world of Forms is our world, that of the mimes, a corruption of the real one.
No one has ever seen a perfect circle, nor a perfectly straight line, yet everyone knows what a circle and a straight line are. Plato utilizes the tool-maker's blueprint as evidence that Forms are real: when a man has discovered the instrument which is naturally adapted to each work, he must express this natural form, and not others which he fancies, in the material.
Nothing mathematical is real, because you cannot demonstrate detuctively that any one methematical system of axioms applies to the entire universe. Move on.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-31 14:51
>>72
HAHAHA
OH WOW
GO BACK TO LISTENING TO YOUR REPETITIVE GUITARS AND SCREECHING VOICES MUSIC
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-01 20:11
OP is right, circles don't exist because pi actually equals three. What you think are circles are just hexagons trying to fuck with you.
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-01 21:51
>>77
No, hexagons are hexagons. What are you talking about?
Name:
Mr. Obvious2008-11-02 5:38
TL;DR
Squares aren't real either, nor any other geometrical shape.
They all have atomical imperfection that makes them actually composed by jagged lines.
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-11 10:04
The imperfectities of a "circle" are part of the perfect circle.
You live life thinking a perfect circle was perfectly round, but you had the perfect circle all along. Nature intended for you to have your perfect circle. Everything else is just the next best thing, and you'll never get to the end, because they're always be something more perfect. You think it's there, the end, but there isn't an end. I have mixed feelings about the whole situation.
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-12 13:17
By this logic there is an ideal for everything, as everything is imperfect and must point towards a perfect example, whether it be a perfect chair or a perfect human or a perfect society, none of which exist. If we are to imagine perfect things exist in some dimension based on our own imperfect examples, then Heaven exists as an ideal society. QED Circles = Theism
Plato argued for a perfect ideal of goodness to exist based on perceiving partial goodness in the world; Thomas Aquinas made the same argument, that goodness must lead to an ideal form of maximum goodness, represented by God.
No, he calls goodness a specific form, the highest form, the very best form, not just any form. This puts him on the level of a Sunday school preacher.
Are you implying that uncertainty is certain for electron beams flying through constant magnetic fields?
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-20 22:57
your hella stupid a circle is just all points that are equal distance from one point (in every direction) your implying that you cant make a perfect circle witch is true but the circle is an idea to show that all the points are equidistant from the center and ur a fag