Googliefest!

[Jamski]

*cough* 2 Pi = 360 degrees

pi = 3,141592654

2 pi = 6,283185307

I completely fail to see how 6,283185307 = 360

-Jam

[Maniac]

It's just an alternative system of measuring angles, like there also is the 400° system for example. In the 2*Pi system, a 180° angle is Pi, a straight 90° angle Pi/2 etcetera... From IIRC fifth class of secondary school, we mostly used that system. It's very handy when working with circles, as then the circumference of a circle is 2*Pi*r, and the angle 2*Pi.

Edit: So 6,283185307 does not equal 360, but 6,283185307 does equal 360 degrees.

[Method]

Originally posted by HongHu
Now it's a good time to point out again that CyCon has (again!) two emperor prime functions.

three!

[Maniac]

Do you want me to put you in prison again for claiming such nonsense?

[Vev]

What if I wasn't real but was a spambot instead?

[Maniac]

Then Ming would ban you.

[Vev]

Is Ming real too? On second thoughts I rather not find out.

[jtsisyoda]

In my neck of the woods, we'd say

pi "radians" = 180°

(Just so certain people know that Maniac, while surely maniacal, is not stupid.)

[Vev]

I thought I left those maths years ago. Now they return to haunt me.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by HongHu
Wow that is very philosophical. So according to your logic, I can be sure that I exist because if I do not exist I wouldn't have been aware of my existance. However following the logic I cannot be sure that anything else exists, for only they themselves would be able to verify that they exist if they are able to be aware of their existance. What a pity that nobody could be sure if a tree exists because the tree itself cannot think and thus cannot verify that it exists.

Yes you can. I am looking in the context of my world. If I can touch a tree, then I can be sure than it my world, it exists, sinc eit has affected something. To use Corellions well put idea as a base, my world is where the axioms are what I know them to be, such as 2 parallel lines not meeting. Whether or not this is true for some other dimension, or someone elses world, is irrelevant to me. In my world, they can not meet. To varify it's existance to me, it must affect me. Think of your world being everything you perceive. We may all see different things. I may see blue when you see green, but because I was taught that that object was green, we both call it green, even though we may see different things. What it is absolutely has no relevance, what it looks like to me, and to you, does to ourselves respectively. If I drop this glass, I know it will hit the floor. The floor may not exist, and it may just smash in mid air, going upwards, in absolute terms, but in terms of my world, it hits the floor. Imagine time. We perceive it linearly. It may all be decided, and there be a stationary point in time, a 5th dimension, where time is how we see space, and one can move freely in it. However since we do not know of that stationary point, it does not exist in our worlds. Whether it may exist absolutely or not is not the point. As they said in the matrix, if you cannot wake up, how could you tell it was a dream? We do not know we are not all dreaming, but that does not make this world any less real to us, whether it exists simply in our minds or in physical form. A long widned way of explainign it, but I'm tired and not feeling concise (sorry)

[Jamski]

That's cheating! Pah

/me rips up a circle in disgust *

-Jam

[Vev]

So there isn't gravity, rather the world coming towards us all the time making if feel like it is gravity?

[Drogue]

No. There is gravity. In the world as we know it, the world as our brain perceive it, there is gravity. However, we have no idea what therev is outside what we perceive, so it may be that in absolute terms, there is not gravity.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Jamski
That's cheating! Pah

* Jamski rips up a circle in disgust *

[Corellion]

Originally posted by Jamski


So much for the logical CyCon

(180° perhaps?)

-Jam

No, pi. More specifically, pi radians, but because radians are equal to metres per metre, they cancel out. Angle is a unitless measure.

But, to use a more archaic measurement system, yes, that is also correct.

edit: Eep. I posted this before seeing all the replies. Others have explained it very well, but I usually omit the word 'radian(s)' because it's redundant and superfluous.

edit2: Speaking of redundant and superfluous, did I really need to use both words?