mathenthusiast Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 The other day when browsing on internet for news related to math, i came across an interesting paper which i thought to share with the research community. The title of the paper caught my attention and therefore out of sheer curiosity, i managed to read the paper. I found the paper to be interesting. One can find the paper on the following link provided. http://vixra.org/abs/1308.0126 This author claims that there is a fundamental error in our mathematics. It's related to the circle constant - Pi. How far this is true? If so, how does this impact our science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 As it is posted on vixra, I would take it with a pinch of salt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 The comments are better than the paper, which should tell you all you need to know about the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 I am not a mathematician. My mathematics is weak. I am, however, skilled at detecting bullshit, although I have no academic qualifications for this. The paper is bullshit. Its impact on science will be about the same as last Wednesday's episode of Coronation Street. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 The paper claims in early paragraphs that the area and the circumference can approximate each other - one is a length (m) and the other is an area (m^2); dimensionally they will always be distinct. And in the "proof" the author assumes that K is the constant of proportionality in both the area and circumference and then uses that assumption to show that it is true. Circular arguments like this have no value. And once you get to silliness like claiming that the area of a circle is 6.28 times r squared (the real area) you are into the realms of fantasy. I have a tub of cracked pepper on my desk in front of me - it is 27.5mm radius and 15mm depth of corns. If I tip it into a square box of a size such that the depth remains 15mm I have a very simple way of assessing the area of a circle; it will not fit your new definition. The claim of a different circular area vs square area is spurious, silly, and wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chadn737 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 viXra exists because arXiv has standards. Anything published on viXra is suspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 viXra exists because arXiv has standards. Anything published on viXra is suspect. You mean it's rubbish until proven otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now