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