Share this thread: 
#19
Aug1511, 07:22 AM

P: 28

I promise you they are equal. No need to get defensive. 


#20
Aug1511, 07:23 AM

P: 28

Where's a professor when you need one?



#21
Aug1511, 07:31 AM

P: 88




#22
Aug1511, 07:31 AM

P: 28




#23
Aug1511, 07:49 AM

P: 28

Really I wish this was a trool and I was crazy, it's not a troll but I might be crazy. I usually talk on the xbox forums, I came here to get real ideas. But ok, see, if you have the triangular base of a sphere and know the radius. There is a way to use that radius and find out what the missing area is whether it is a circle or a sphere. I am working on it. Need more specifics? I've thought about it for 20 years. It's not Pi. no 22/7 


#24
Aug1511, 07:55 AM

P: 28

Circle seems to be different, not like a square, but it is. It follows the same rules. Just another geometrical object. This is what I am trying to achieve.



#25
Aug1511, 08:15 AM

Mentor
P: 18,278

Crocque, could you please clearly state what you're thinking about??
And I would love to see the proof with that hexagon, do you mind giving it?? 


#26
Aug1511, 09:41 AM

P: 28

The proof to my theorem is simple. 1 line down, 1 line across, another line down to form one side of a hexagon. One radius up, one sideways, another one down. They both equal 3.
I'm not going to write out a proof, you end up with 6 equilateral triangles. I just saw it, I didn't need a proof, my teacher's helped me prove it. To be honest, I don't even remember the proof, but, like I said, prove me wrong. I think we did something with the angles and proved it. Was 20 years ago. Chad's Theorem "Inside a regular inscribed hexagon, the radius of the circle is equal to the sides of the hexagon." 


#27
Aug1511, 09:41 AM

Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 39,533

That is, the radius of a circle inscribed in a hexagon of side length x is [tex]\frac{x\sqrt{3}}{2}[/tex] NOT equal to the side length. It is the radius on the circle circumscribed about a hexagon that is equal to a side of the hexagon. 


#28
Aug1511, 09:55 AM

P: 28

Will anyone take me seriously please? If not disprove me. But you can't, there's the problem. I know I'm right. I just want help going further. This theorem is old news. 


#29
Aug1511, 09:57 AM

P: 28

I'm trying to remember but I think I proved it by angles. If this angle and that angle are such a degree, you have an equitateral triangle. Hard to remember. This talk of circumscribed is nonsense, sides would be larger than the radius.



#30
Aug1511, 09:58 AM

Mentor
P: 18,278

And no, as long as you don't prove this, nobody will take you serious. Perhaps download http://www.geogebra.org/cms/ and draw it out. If it comes out to be equal, then you're likely right. But it won't come out equal. 


#31
Aug1511, 09:59 AM

Mentor
P: 18,278




#32
Aug1511, 10:07 AM

P: 88

When a hexagon is inscribed inside the circle, it is true. Not the other way around.



#33
Aug1511, 11:57 AM

P: 352

I couldn't find Chad's Theorem anywhere. Perhaps a link?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_theorems (not in there either) 


#34
Aug1511, 12:22 PM

P: 7

Visual aid to the discussion. Radius = 1. Therefore side of triangle = 1. Sum of hexagon sides = 6x1=6. Circumference of circle = 2*pi*r = 6.2832.....



#35
Aug1511, 12:40 PM

P: 628

As I said, and others repeated even with a diagram, yes a hexgaon that inscribes a circle has sides of the same length as the circle's radius. This is known. You've no right to try to ensnare folks in your wierd guessing game. You've got our attention [more than you deserve] so now dish up or clam up. 


#36
Aug1511, 01:32 PM

P: 326

No one is going to steal your theorem, because it is wrong. You're trying to claim that you've made a discovery in geometry that no one else has realized during 2000+ years of mathematical thought, using the same simple methods that have been available for those 2000+ years. You're claiming that you've not only got more geometric insight and raw ability than Euclid, Archemedes, Gauss etc. but that despite the simplicity of your proof, no one during the last couple of millennia has been able to think of the same construction and devise the proof.
Post the proof. You've got a wrong proof, and you might learn a thing or two by posting it up here and having people pick it apart. That is the issue here. Also, you might want to look at the history of trying to prove impossible, but not immediately obviously so, methods using geometry and algebra. Here, trying to square the circle is a good one and it took a pretty powerful proof to show it was impossible. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Differentiation quotient rule question, am i wrong or is my book wrong?  Calculus & Beyond Homework  1  
Capacitance... do I have the totally wrong values/equation or am I converting wrong?!  Introductory Physics Homework  0  
Need help about math is my calculation wrong the answer from the text book is wrong  Calculus & Beyond Homework  2  
Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, and Bush's Desert Shield Jr.  Current Events  6 