Hi friends. I found a value for where

Hi friends. I found a value for where
Either your solution is the same as magimaster, or it is , or you are wrong.Originally Posted by clearwar
Those are the only two solutions. You can see that by simply solving the equation.
Another way to see that no integer n can be a solition is to use the fact that is transcendental and that for integer values of n the right side of your equation is algebraic.
Thank you for Answers. With n i intend a common value,not interger,certantly not integer. Solving the "virtual quadratrure" of the circle with a square square the circle allows us to reach that formula. Few days and i will prepare official documents...
The solution to your problem is trivial, and has been presented to you. Any high school freshman should be able to solve the equation in his head.Originally Posted by clearwar
This has nothing to do with squaring the circle. And BTW squaring hte circle, with ruler and straightedge according to the rules of elementary geometry, has been proved to be impossible using Galois theory.
Official documents ? Commitment papers ?
Only steps ... I have prove and proved them again. I'm so sure i have found the solution i can't be me to attemperate or use to be used to draw official drawings.
I build a circle and an " immaginary square" have same area of the circle.
I have to admit i can inscribe inside this square a square,it is inscribed in the circle too.
I calculate area of the "rest" of 2,into and I compare She of where and THEN i assume ... where ... the minor side or the triangle. It's all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9hW7dMWqjs&feature=fvw
Songs i use to understand deine frei wann maine ist werden
I think you are very confused. You probably need to sit down facetoface with someone competent in mathematics and have this explained to you.Originally Posted by clearwar
In your very first step you state that one must square the circle to derive your solution, which is impossible. Magimaster provided a rather quick solution to disprove your claim of deriving pi through basic substitution.Originally Posted by clearwar
These topics are beginning to get rather annoying nowthey have gone on for a rather elongated period of time and do little more than discuss relatively basic mathematics that take away time from any real learning.
i dont think so
Ellatha has a very good point.Originally Posted by clearwar
You say you don't, but perhaps you should change your mind and try that thinking thing.
I will try to explain this to you than. Pi is a number that mathematicians call trascendental.Originally Posted by clearwar
To understand what this means, you should understand what polynomials are. They are merely expressions with three or more terms (an expression with one term is a monomial, one with two terms is a binomial, and one with three is a trinomial), where the standard form for the class of curves is . When we have an equation, we can always set it equal to zero because of this, that is to say there will always be liketerms. The "roots" of a polynomials are merely the numbers that are solutions to the polynomial when the expression is set to zero. A number that is transcendental is one that is never be the roots of a polynomial equation with rational coefficients, or in other words, not algebraic. So if a number is not algebraic, than it is sufficient to say that one can not form an algebraic expression that fully defines it.
One can indeed manipulate geometric equations to find a formula for pi. We can use the formula for the area of a circle for example, that is if , than . Another example is the formula for the volume of a cylinder: because , than . However, manipulating a formula to derive a particular quantity and writing an algebraic expression and defining it are two different things. There have been ideas more clever than your own that attempt to fully define pi, and indeed they have all also been shown to be subject to error.
To understand this concept you must be willing to think in abstract fashion. For example, we can construct pi using a series of the form . Than from this, we'd expect that
Finally, my remaining recommendation for you is that you continue to learn mathematicsalthough it may be increase your ability in Euclidean geometry to attempt to geometrically construct pi, actually doing so with the intent of succeeding is doomed to failure and will only take away time from true progress.
Were a mistake. Formulas are:and ...
solving these you can sum them toghether to obtain the side of the square with area =
Jumping on approximations,the value for pi =3,006847154
I think you can find it best solving a^2+b^2=2
A couple of thing are pretty clear.Originally Posted by clearwar
1) The length of the side of a square having area is
2) The solution in 1) is readily apparent to anyone in the set of those with even minimal competence in elementary school mathematics.
3) An approximate value for pi is 3.14159 and this is known to reasonably competent eighthgraders. 3.006847154 is NOT a good approximation for pi and is rather inferior to the common 22/7 which itself is not all that good.
3) You apparently lie in the complement of the set identified in 2)
4) You have no idea how profound your lack of knowledge of basic arithmetic really is.
I dont understand. is refered to quarter of square having same size of PI outside the circle. To obtain all these formulas i have drawned the immaginari quadrature,than i solved in ab,the unknowed sides of the triangle stand outside the circle,having une side stimated in . Where is the error? It seems to myself to be all logic...3) You apparently lie in the complement of the set identified in 2)
Mod note I strongly doubt this thread is going anywhere useful, accordingly I am tempted to lock.
Input please, boys and girls?
If this thread goes anywhere useful it will be a miracle.Originally Posted by Guitarist
I would hate to see miracles wasted on such trivia, there are many more important miracles that might be performed.
Kill it.
clearwar: You have been given at least (by my count) five good reasons why your "conjecture" fails. As you refuse to take these to heart, I lock this thread.
Sorry
« apparently my dad solved fermats theoreme  Diff Calc observation. » 