🚀 go-pugleaf

DaveHatunen (hatunen@netcom.com) wrote:
> In article <3kabpg$hlu@utdallas.edu>,  <son3776@utdallas.edu> wrote:

> [...]

> >Pi does not require a physical definition, but that doesn't negate or
> >invalidate the physical definition that it *does* have.

> It does NOT have a mathematical definition except to the mathematically
> simple-minded who can not grasp the concepts required. All your
> staements that pi has a physical defintion does not give it one.

So what you're saying is that pi has no definitions whatsoever.
Highly unlikely.

> >> As such, they are utterly different from Planck's constant, the gravitational
> >> constant, etc, which are empirically measured quantities whose
> >> numeric values are determined by choice of units.
> >
> >Pi was also empirically measured, as well as mathematically calculated --
> >but other constants were mathematically calculated as well as being
> >empirically measured.

> You are totally missing the concept. You are also wrong: planck's
> constant, and other such constants, do not have a mathematical
> definition, while pi does. You are mathemnatically ignorant, and a
> prime candidate for mathematically stupid.

Actually it is you who is "missing the concept".

Constants such as planck's constant, etc. were first realized through
mathematical calculations (algebra, calculus, differential equations --
if that's not math, then I don't know what is).  Later they were
confirmed by experimentation.

However, there were other constants that were discovered experimentally
(elementary charge, etc.) that were later found to fit nicely into
equations (although with elementary charge it was because it was found
alongside another unknown constant).


--