I am wrong in thinking the circumference or the diameter of a circle has to be rational?

  • Ashy
    link
    fedilink
    34
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    how would we measure a never ending number?

    You’re talking about maths, maths is theoretical. Measuring is physics.

    In the real world you eventually would have to measure the atoms of the ink on your paper, and it would get really complicated. Basically … you can’t exactly meassure how long it is because physics gets in the way (There is an entire BBC documentary called “How Long is a Piece of String” it’s quite interesting).

    • @SkyezOpen
      link
      2810 months ago

      Is that basically the coastline paradox?

    • @TwoafrosOP
      link
      410 months ago

      Thanks for the answer and for suggesting the documentary!(excited to have my head hurt even more after watching it😂)

      • DreamerofDays
        link
        fedilink
        810 months ago

        Another way of thinking about it:

        Numbers offer a sense of scale. As numbers go further left from the decimal, they get bigger and bigger. Likewise, as they go right from the decimal, they get smaller and smaller.

        If I’m looking with just my eyes, I can see big things without issue, but as things get smaller and smaller, it becomes more and more difficult. Eventually, I can’t see the next smallest thing at all.

        But we know that smaller thing is there— I can use a magnifying glass and see things slightly smaller than I can unaided. With a microscope, I can see smaller still.

        So I can see the entirety of a leaf, know where it begins and ends, even though I can’t, unaided, see the details of all its cells. Likewise, you can see the entirety of the line you drew, it’s just that you lack precise enough tools to measure it with perfect accuracy.