this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
49 points (94.5% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35737 readers
1058 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JoBo@feddit.uk 54 points 9 months ago (3 children)

No, they don't have to be rational. It's counter-intuitive but you can accurately draw a line with an irrational length, even though you can't ever finish writing that length down.

The simplest example is a right-angled triangle with two side equal to 1. The hypotenuse is of length root 2, also an irrational number but you can still draw it.

[–] Twoafros@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Thanks for the answer. I'm confident you're correct but I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around drawing a line with an irrational length. If we did draw a right angled triangle with two sides equal to 1cm and we measured the hypotenuse physically with a ruler, how would we measure a never ending number? How would we able to keep measuring as the numbers after the decimal point keep going forever but the physical line itself is finite?

[–] Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net 47 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's not that it can be measured forever, it's just that it refuses to match up with any line on the ruler.

For a line of length pi: it's somewhere between 3 or 4, so you get a ruler and figure out it's 3.1ish, so you get a better ruler and you get 3.14ish. get the best ruler in existence and you get 3.14159265...ish

[–] Klear@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

...and when you go deep enough you suddenly lose the line in a jumble of vibrating particles or even wose quantum foam, realising the length of the line no longer makes sense as a concept and that there are limits to precision measurements in the physical world.

[–] cali_ash@lemmy.wtf 34 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

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@lemmy.world 28 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Is that basically the coastline paradox?

[–] cali_ash@lemmy.wtf 17 points 9 months ago
[–] Twoafros@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] DreamerofDays@kbin.social 8 points 9 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.

[–] JoBo@feddit.uk 10 points 9 months ago

Irrational numbers can be rounded to whatever degree of accuracy you demand (or your measuring instrument allows). They're not infinite, it just requires an infinite number of decimal places to write down the exact number. They're known to be within two definite values, one rounded down and one rounded up at however many decimal places you calculate.

[–] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

In the real world, you’re measuring with significant figures.

You draw a 1 cm line with a ruler. But it’s not really 1 cm. It’s 0.9998 cm, or 1.0001, or whatever. The accuracy will get better if you have a better ruler: if it goes down to mm you’ll be more accurate than if you only measure in cm, and even better if you have a nm ruler and magnification to see where the lines are.

When you go to measure the hypotenuse, the math answer for a unit 1 side triangle is 1.414213562373095… . However, your ruler can’t measure that far. It might measure 1.4 cm, or 1.41, or maybe even 1.414, but you’d need a ruler with infinite resolution to get the math answer.

Let’s say your ruler can measure millimeters. You’d measure your sides as 1.00 cm, 1.00 cm, and 1.41 cm (the last digit is the visual estimate beyond the mm scoring.) Because that’s the best your ruler can measure in the real world.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Millimeters are 1/1000 of a meter, or 1/10 of a centimeter (which is 1/100 of a meter).

[–] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's not fixed. Millimeters aren't 1/100 of a centimeter.

[–] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It is fixed. Your ruler shows 1.0, and then you estimate 1 digit past to 1.00 +/- 0.01.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You're not making any estimation within 1/10 like that. 1/2 is as close as you can reasonably get.

[–] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Ok, well I didn’t come up with the system so please write to the heads of science to get it changed.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

You jest, but this seriously is not standard practice in academia or professionally.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 1 points 9 months ago

And this comes up in some fields like surveying. The tools are relatively precise, but not enough to be completely accurate in closing a loop of measurements. Because of the known error, there is a hierarchy of things to measure from as continual measurements can lead to small errors becoming large.

[–] Klear@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I used to think that "1 + 1 = 3 for high enough values of 1" was a joke until I realised it's actually true when it comes to real-world measurements.

[–] Nemo@midwest.social 16 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'd like to point out that rational numbers can easily be written in finite length, just not in decimal format.

[–] wjrii@kbin.social 7 points 9 months ago

Yup. This is corollary to the other post talking about diameter. If you make a perfect circle with your perfect meter of perfect string, suddenly you can no longer perfectly express the diameter in SI units, but rather it's estimated at 31.8309886... cm. Nothing is wrong with the string in either scenario.

[–] Marcbmann@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

This is a great life lesson. Even though it's irrational, you can still do it!