Is Pi (π) a number or a concept; is zero a number or an operator?

It is a concept rather than a number. It is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. The most basically used value for basic calculations is 22/7. This in turn goes as 3.142857142857… and so on until any number of digits you want to calculate. But it is not actually 22/7. So the exact number varies depending on which version of the fraction you are using as your reference. I am not going to go deep into the calculating of pi here. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi for a basic understanding of the history of pi.

If you wanted to find out a factor using some formula which needs the same factor to be known, then it will not work; never. Squaring the circle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaring_the_circle ) was proven impossible because of the values and characteristics found for pi.

Now, squaring the circle cannot be attempted without having a way of calculating the area of a circle. Calculating the area of a circle requires pi by all means. If you are using pi to calculate the area of the circle and are trying to prove pi, then it is not going to work. Squaring the circle is basically the challenge to understanding the relationship of the diameter of a circle to its circumference; nothing else.

Unless you come up with a solution to devising the area of a circle without having to use pi, you are not going to be able to prove or disprove anything about squaring the circle; and therefore to understanding the relationship. Is there a way to calculate the area of a circle without having to use pi? As far as I know; No!

Let me take you to another angle where it is not Newtonian Physics nor is Einstenian Science; this is new. What if a circle wasn’t a circle at all? What if a circle was actually not a shape but an optical illusion? Here is why. For something to exist in space, that thing or shape has to align with the least units of space. Since space is 3D, the least units of space also should be 3D. Any other 3D shapes than cubes cannot fill in the space without gaps. The basic units of space are cubes; not spheres. Spheres and circles and anything with a curve do not exist. We only imagined and seen them because of our very least of comprehensive ability.

Every tiniest part of space should be filled with the least units of space and you give any other shape for the basic units of space and there will be gaps in volume where you wouldn’t have any idea of what filled it in. Since it is space, filling in must be the basic units of space.

It is not impossible. Until we developed scanning electron microscopes, how much uneven the perfect of surfaces were. Consider something that is completely flat; is it really so? At the end the material is made up of atoms and molecules which do not have a flat surface. So nothing in spite of however perfectly flat looking it is, is not flat; not at all.

It is in the same way, nothing is curved in this universe. Nothing can be. Everything is comprised of straight edged basic building units. It is the appearance even to the electron microscope which is not capable of looking beyond a certain limit that makes things looked curved. You can simply see some optical illusions which show you straight lines into curved ones.

In the case of pi, circles and curves, our problem is the conceptual illusion that there are things that are curved. You can have a look at the images to see actually how a circle as we say it would exist in the very least scales of space.

The actual circumference of a circle will be the addition of the sides of the square shaped units of space that are at the edge of the circular arrangement. We have to calculate pi, and we have to do calculations and we have to apply the area of a circle in very many applications. So we have to have some value. If we are looking for an absolute value, then it is not pi. It is something else. Is there are relationship between a curvature and a straight line? Yes, all curvatures are made up of straight lines. We have to start thinking from this direction to obtain the new constant. It is not pi. If we start with any unit of linear spatial measurement like 1mm, then we can start calculating the number of squares that would be needed to fill in the circle without poking out of the circle. Then we can calculate how many squares would be needed to fill in a circle with poking the circle. These two figures will help to obtain a ratio between the numbers of squares needed to fill in a circle.

Now, we have to start from 1unit sided square and 1 unit diametered circle. Then increase the diameter of the circle to 2, 3, 4 and more units. Fill in squares with the same 1unit sides. This will result in obtaining a ratio for the circle and the square. If we tried to identify the relationship with the curvature, it will never work because there is no actual curvature. We are hypothesizing something that is not there. So all the results we would get would also be hypotheses and not actual.

If we forget pi and look at the challenge of squaring the circle, would it be possible? Yes. Will a circle have an absolute area? Yes. All the calculations we do now; be it at NASA or in quantum mechanics labs, calculate the area of a circle with lack of accuracy. The calculations are very much accurate to the point where the result is not absolute; but the circle has an absolute area. Why am telling that everyone is calculating the circle to a wrong answer? Because all the calculations involve pi and pi has not yet been calculated accurately. I know there have been values found exact to over 12 trillion digits, we still don’t know if that was the value.

Here is how I attempted squaring the circle in 2011.

We cannot compare or find the ratio of two values where one value is absolute and the other is approximate. The area of a square is always absolutely calculated and the calculated area of a circle is never absolute. Since there is no circle, pi is a conceptual constant. It is not real.

I know I am not a mathematician and all the experts in mathematics are going to be mad at me if they even read these things; but I am sorry. To me, my case proves right.

You can say that using pi up to a 40 digit accurate value is more than enough for even sophisticated calculations; I do not agree. That is because our equipments to measure the results in experiments are having curvatures and are calibrated, calculated and devised using pi. If you used pi to set the accuracy of equipment, then all the results that are obtained from that equipment are not absolute. In the essence of mathematics, when a result is not absolute, it is WRONG!

Simple examples could be the lenses used in devices that operate with light. You are calculating the focus length and some other important characteristics and settings of the equipments with the aid of pi. If your value for pi had only a trillionth of difference with the actual factor, then your results have the tendency to have faults by the same one trillionth of any results. If you were calculating the distance through which the light was travelling, and found that it was a trillion light years away, then it could be one light year less or more. This is only if the value of pi was a trillionth times deviating. We have much bigger proportions of deviations of pi. If we applied these results to the smallest of scales like measuring the wavelengths of radiations or measuring the number of particles within a certain area, and if we used pi anywhere there, then the results would be deceiving.

We are running; yes. We have satellites and we have quantum computers; yes. This is still at Einstein’s level of physics. We are only applying the same concepts in different manners. So we are getting different combinations. If we are to step up to the next level of science, then we will have to move forward where, all existing science will be an example of the probability of finding a wrong answer.

There is another issue is mathematics that I had a look at. The value of zero; what is the value of zero? Well, to me zero should not be considered as a number at all. It is not a number. It is an operator. Like a decimal point, or a thousands separator comma; the symbol 0 is an operator. It is merely a multiplication by 10.

So what about the answer to an equation where 1-1=? Well, it is not zero. Zero is not a number. The concept is right, but the way it is presented and has been researched and trialed doesn’t look right to me. We need to put in another symbol to indicate the value of 1-1=() or 2-2=(). This will get us towards a proper understanding of the value of maximum infinity and minimum infinity. 

We are also using infinity in many equations. Since infinity does not have a value and we round it up to a certain value, the results are not absolute. They are accurate enough for the existing science but are not good enough for the science tomorrow. Discarding zero (0) as a number will draft the way towards understanding infinity as we call it. In fact, there cannot be infinity too.

Let me get it in another post.