Viewing last 25 versions of comment by Softy on image #1261008

"[@Vree":](/1261008#comment_5472723
)  
Look, I don't mean to insult you, but it's hard to avoid when you keep being wrong about things as certain and definite as mathematics.


 
Nothing about any of this has to do with "areas". And the analogy from 3-D to 2-D can be made -- in fact, _*I made it_*, while you were just misusing terminology.


 
You did not "adequately explain" your point. Your example where you "fold its edges to be closer to the circle" doesn't produce a regular polyhedron, or a regular polygon, or _*anything_* that's in any way helpful in analyzing Starlight's statement. Your shape will always have perimeter 8r, and that proves nothing at all.


 
Taking limits of things as certain values approach infinity is a hugely useful concept - y'know pretty much all of calculus depends on it?


 
Now, I _*never even said_* that Starlight's statement is correct. I just said that _*yours_* was *in_correct, because it is. At best, it's very sloppy to say that something has "infinitely many" things; there are classes of infinities and things can get weird very fast. I can't say for certain whether the statment is true -- unlike some people, I don't go around arguing and claiming things I don't actually know.

"
 
[@Tyler_Cunn":](/1261008#comment_5472757
)  
Well, _actually_*.... I have a degree in mathematics. However it would be generous to say that I'm a bit rusty on certain concepts; it's been years. I do know when someone's trying to BS through simple geometry, though.

"@Vree":/1261008#comment_5472723
Look, I don't mean to insult you, but it's hard to avoid when you keep being wrong about things as certain and definite as mathematics.

Nothing about any of this has to do with "areas". And the analogy from 3-D to 2-D can be made -- in fact, _I made it_, while you were just misusing terminology.

You did not "adequately explain" your point. Your example where you "fold its edges to be closer to the circle" doesn't produce a regular polyhedron, or a regular polygon, or _anything_ that's in any way helpful in analyzing Starlight's statement. Your shape will always have perimeter 8r, and that proves nothing at all.

Taking limits of things as certain values approach infinity is a hugely useful concept - y'know pretty much all of calculus depends on it?

Now, I _never even said_ that Starlight's statement is correct. I just said that _yours_ was, because it is. At best, it's very sloppy to say that something has "infinitely many" things; there are classes of infinities and things can get weird very fast. I can't say for certain whether the statment is true -- unlike some people, I don't go around arguing and claiming things I don't actually know.

"@Tyler_Cunn":/1261008#comment_5472757
Well, _actually_.... I have a degree in mathematics. However it would be generous to say that I'm a bit rusty on certain concepts; it's been years. I do know when someone's trying to BS through simple geometry, though.