I'm not sure it's safe to post real theorems here.
I'm new and not sure how to even ask. I feel like I'm on to something, but... there's that uncertainty.
Dear god I hope your theorem is "pi = 4" or "pi is rational".
Certainly not, but this is why I'm hesitant to post. I'm in a beginning stage. I don't have the answer yet. I just see it.
What are you asking exactly? Post your theorems if you have any!
Is it wrong because Tau is right?
I think you're going to need to explain what you even mean. I mean, Pi exists, there are algebraic methods for computing it out to n decimal places, so it's well defined. Do you mean that you don't think that Pi is the right constant to use in the equation Pi*radius^2 = area of the geometric object called a circle?
In what way is Pi wrong? There must be some specific context or definition of Pi that you are referring to?
I came up with this "Inside a regular inscribed hexagon, the radius of the circle is equal to the sides of the hexagon".
It was my beginning. I believe Pi is not needed and that it is not accurate. The area of a circle, or even better a sphere, can be done with no numbers, just variables. It's a work in progress. I feel I need a partner with good object and spacial orientation to understand where I am headed, less everyone will think I'm crazy, lol.
If I could just find one person that understands this part. I might convice you of the rest. I saw the theorem, but it took others besides me to prove it for me, with much persistence on my part. Now that I'm working on a new one, I feel it's ground breaking and it scares me.
I'm not asking anyone to care, but if you think there's any value in studying what I'm saying, by all means, talk to me.
that sounds very interesting
If you are talking about a regular hexagon in which a circle is inscribed that just grazes the sides of the hexagon (at their centres) then the radius of the circle is [SQRT(3)]/2 (~0.866) times the length of the sides of the hexagon.
If you are talking about a regular hexagon in which a circle is inscribed that passes through the apexes of the hexagon, then the radius of the circle is clearly the same length as the sides of the hexagon, because the line from the centre to an apex is one side of two of the equilateral triangles that form a set of 6 nested equilateral triangles forming the hexagon, and it is also a radius of the circle, so radius and all sides are identical.
This used to be the classic way of drawing a hexagon, with ruler and compasses, before there was an excess amount of computer power to make your brain go soft.
What's your point?
It is simply not true that a circle inscribed in a regular hexagon has a radius equal to the sides of the hexagon.
It simply is true. I proved it in the 10th grade. Check it out, disprove it, if you wish.
I'm just curious as to what you mean.
Do you believe Pi is not the correct number to describe the area of a circle of radius 1? That the ratio of the circumference to the diameter is not constant? What does the hexagon's perimeter imply about the area of the circle? Have you found anything "wrong" with current proofs?
See this is why I get scared, if someone does realize what I'm sayng they will run with it. Then again, it's my theorem. No one wanted to believe me then or now, still true.
No Pi isn't the right number, in my mind. I'm looking outside the cricle. No circle is perfect. That's why gemotery is the only way. Yeah we can use algebra to form curvatures, doen't make it correct. Think 3 dimensional.
I don't want to say everything because I feel only a certain type of person can see this.
Please post your proof
No, it's not. You probably proved it when the circle is circumscribed by the hexagon, not inscribed.
I didn't come to these forums to show off, more to meet people that are thinkers like myself. I don't have the background to discuss this with education on my side, it's something I see.
I really need to get into college again, but I'm 40, still I love learning.
I asked you nicely if you do not belive me that disprove it. Please do not tell me what I already know.
I promise you they are equal. No need to get defensive.
Where's a professor when you need one?
What do you mean by "no circle is perfect"? Pi has many different definitions, so it looks like you've narrowed your disagreement down to: C/D is not a constant number. If you don't accept the calculus proofs, why not? I understand you don't want to reveal your "theorem" but you seem to be unintentionally trolling the forum. If I made a thread saying that I can clearly "see" that gravity actually did not exist but didn't want to communicate my idea, what would you think?
You're getting close. Just think a bit more outside the circle.
troll, really?, I just joined the forums. I joined to ask about this math problem that has been in my head forever. Thought maybe I should actually ask some knowledgable people. Forgive me, I'm just saying I think this can be done geometrically. This is not my first time debating this in life. I'm not trying to argue with anyone. I'm looking for help.
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
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.
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??
Separate names with a comma.