New way to find the Circumference of a Circle

In summary, the conversation focuses on the concept of squaring the circle, which is the attempt to find the circumference of a circle using only a compass and straightedge. It is mathematically proven that this is impossible, as the number pi is transcendental and cannot be constructed with these tools. The conversation also discusses the idea of using other geometric shapes to approximate the circumference of a circle, but ultimately concludes that it is not possible to find the exact measurement.
  • #1
MacCormaic
While I haven't the right technology to find out if the measurement is absolute, it seems that by adding the measurements of A, B, C and D together, you get the circumference of a circle.

(image attached)
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20150106_143512.jpg
    IMG_20150106_143512.jpg
    15.8 KB · Views: 405
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Nope, I'm afraid that gives you

$$2 + \frac{6}{\sqrt{2}} \approx 6.242\ldots$$
assuming a circle of radius 1. This is kind of close to ##2 \pi \approx 6.283\ldots##, but not especially close.
 
  • Like
Likes MacCormaic
  • #3
Thanks for that Ben. There are several other measurements within the design which brings the measure very close, so it has made me wonder if it is possible to find the circumference of a circle by placing squares inside the circle.
 
  • #4
"Design"? All you did was draw a picture. Since you are doing compass-and-straightedge constructions, every marked length in your diagram is a constructible number. ##\pi## is not even algebraic, let alone constructible, so nothing you can do with a compass and straightedge will ever yield ##\pi##. This was mathematically proven quite some time ago.
 
  • Like
Likes MacCormaic
  • #6
Well Ben I'll be the first to admit I know absolutely nothing about Maths or Geometry or Transcendental numbers. The drawing was merely inspired by reading the book on Infinity by Brian Clegg. While I accept that a circle can't be measured by straight edge and compass, some of the points within the sketch are not whole numbers. I was reading that a computer recently was able to record 13 trillion decimal points in finding the absolute circumference and that there was still a infinity of digits that could be added on. I wasn't trying to prove that a Circle could be squared, I was merely asking if it's possible that the circumference can be derived from another geometrical shaped placed within the circle, where some of the points have decimal measurements. But thanks for working out the equation showing that it was off by a fraction (which is a huge fraction when the circle becomes larger). I do find it difficult to believe that a circumference can't be measured to an absolute number.
 
  • #7
MacCormaic said:
I wasn't trying to prove that a Circle could be squared, I was merely asking if it's possible that the circumference can be derived from another geometrical shaped placed within the circle...
What this statement says is "I wasn't trying to square the circle, I was just trying to do the same thing as squaring the circle".
 
  • Like
Likes MacCormaic
  • #8
No, what I asking is, is it possible that there can be a measurement between two points in a geometrical shape (or number of shapes), that when added together with a number of other measurements could make up the equivalent of the circumference of a circle. For example in the attached sketch I would assume that line A from points x + y are never absolute numbers when lines B & C are absolute; so it is possible that the percentage they are off could make them a transcendental number?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20150106_185237.jpg
    IMG_20150106_185237.jpg
    14.7 KB · Views: 382
  • #9
MacCormaic said:
No, what I asking is, is it possible that there can be a measurement between two points in a geometrical shape (or number of shapes), that when added together with a number of other measurements could make up the equivalent of the circumference of a circle.

Exactly. You are asking if it is possible to do the equivalent of squaring the circle.
 
  • Like
Likes MacCormaic
  • #10
If I draw a number line, I know PI lies between 3 and 4 but there is no way to construct an intersection that will cross the number line at PI. I can get arbitrarily close but I can never say definitively that the intersection is PI. It has to do with constructible numbers and PI being transcendental can't be constructed.
 
  • Like
Likes MacCormaic
  • #11
Ok, so the mathematical definition you are saying is that any attempt to find the measurement using lines is termed an attempt to square the circle, which is absolutely impossible. Thanks for the imput.
 
  • #12
MacCormaic said:
Ok, so the mathematical definition you are saying is that any attempt to find the measurement using lines is termed an attempt to square the circle, which is absolutely impossible. Thanks for the imput.
Exactly.

Think about it this way. If you can use a compass and ruler to construct a set of straight lines which when added up equal the circumference of a circle, you can just to this:

Using the same compass/ruler, transfer the line segments all onto one straight line. Divide that line into 4 equal parts (trivial with compass/ruler). You now have the sides of a square, the perimeter of which is the same as the circumference of the original circle. This is called squaring the circle. It is not possible.
 
  • Like
Likes MacCormaic

1. What is the new way to find the circumference of a circle?

The new way to find the circumference of a circle is by using the formula C = 2πr, where C is the circumference, π is the mathematical constant pi, and r is the radius of the circle.

2. How is this method different from the traditional way of finding the circumference?

This method is different because it simplifies the calculation by using the radius instead of the diameter. It also incorporates the mathematical constant pi, which ensures a more accurate result.

3. Can this method be used for all types of circles?

Yes, this method can be used for all types of circles, regardless of their size or shape. As long as you know the radius of the circle, you can use this formula to find its circumference.

4. How do I measure the radius of a circle?

You can measure the radius of a circle by using a ruler or measuring tape. Place the ruler or tape at the center of the circle and extend it to the edge. The distance from the center to the edge is the radius.

5. Is there a simpler way to find the circumference of a circle?

No, this is the simplest and most accurate way to find the circumference of a circle. Other methods, such as using the diameter or estimating the circumference, may lead to less precise results.

Similar threads

  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
24
Views
251
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • General Math
Replies
3
Views
873
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • New Member Introductions
Replies
1
Views
68
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
1K
Back
Top