News about the Satanic Temple

Oh Cog, I shall be gentle, I love you you anal fixated ape. even your limited cranial expansion and addiction to random masturbation, should realise:
You may be ruled by bondage without realizing it. Do not let it shatter the knowledge of your quest. Discontinuity is born in the gap where transcendence has been excluded. Yes, it is possible to disrupt the things that can destroy us, but not without peace on our side. A round square will only become apparent when you relinquish the things, you think that are, and embrace the things that could become as one.

Hooly frecki, dat nogssy eggy shit is way goof…wut wus isharin?

4 Likes

A square can be mathematically transformed into a circle. Just define your coordinates correctly, and you have a round square. Or, if you invert the transformation, a square circle. Here’s one such transformation:

And here’s another:

2 Likes

Didn’t I just say that? Twirl that rolling pin! Damn…where did that nog go?

2 Likes

You have to see the irony, they think others are deluded.

Maybe a trick he learned from their unevidenced absentee deity?

Sorry but I have no idea what that means, and it’s to, also why is truth capitalised?

Ah, one of those again, is there anything as sad as unrequited debate.

Ah good, it wasn’t just my OCD.

Hmm, cryptic non sequiturs, random capitals, are you sure you’re an atheist?

Noooooo, what a waste of a perfectly good word, I wish I’d known this sooner, I must say.

Wtf is happening, am I having a stroke? :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

2 Likes

Yes. Even in the UK you can see the bias on even reputable news channels like the BBC where victims of crimes are referred to as “good christians” when no one ever (in my experience) refers to anyone as a “Good atheist” or “a good humanist”.

UK Atheist

3 Likes

Wow. I didn’t know this. Do they refer to “Good Jews” or “Good Muslims”?

1 Like

I can’t say as an absolute but I have never heard them do so.

UK Atheist

2 Likes

What the fuck am I doing in this cupboard? Where are my trousers…why is Captain Cat …oh, I see, as you were…damn. Umm. Ooookaaay.

Where the hell…oh, Eric’s stable. Ooookay.

Tin…good egg nog…

1 Like

LOL. I don’t need math to transform a square into a circle. No one said anything about transforming.

1 Like

Are there any examples of “group stroke”?…or perhaps “transmissible stroke”?:flushed:

6 Likes

Thank you for posting this.

I follow some (but not all) of the math.

I was under the impression that one cannot square a circle with perfect accuracy, and that this has been mathematically proven.

In the brilliant (and entertaining!) book A History of Pi, Petr Beckmann (yes, the name is spelled correctly) summarizes a story (more of an urban legend) about how the legislature in Indiana considered a bill that would mandate (and carry the force of law) that Pi is exactly equal to 3 . . . presumably because of a Biblical quote about a molten sea that was round in compass and 30 cubits in circumfrence and 10 cubits across.

The politician who proposed this bill had to go through a lot of strange (and fallacious) mathematical gymnastics to square the circle, such as trying to mathematically define a difference between a circle and a curved line enclosing the circle. When I read his arguments, it seemed that he couldn’t even distinguish between applied mathematics and pure mathematics, so I fail to see how he was qualified to challenge thousands of years of mathematical precedent . . . and then I remind myself about how non-Eucludean geometry throws out Euclid’s fifth postulate about parallel lines (after more than 2,000 years of tradition) and that General and Special relativity were the result.

So, have the several mathematical proofs that a circle can’t be perfectly squared been refuted?

Or do I misunderstand?

The Lindemann-Weierstrass Theorem shows that Pi is transcendental, which means that it can’t be expressed as a root of a number.

So, this means that an infinite number of steps would be needed to construct a square with the exact same area as a given circle if one uses a ruler and a drawing compass.

Or this is how I remember it from school.

Am I wrong?

That is true. But you first need to define what you mean by “squaring the circle”, and read very carefully what I wrote. Usually we mean this:

Squaring the circle is a problem in geometry first proposed in Greek mathematics. It is the challenge of constructing a square with the area of a given circle by using only a finite number of steps with a compass and straightedge.

Note the words I have underlined. This is quite different from mapping all(*) points on a square to a circle using a mathematical transformation, or the other way around. I carefully chose the words

Which is not the same as the regular meaning of “squaring the circle” quoted above. The difference lies in that when squaring the circle, you don’t care where each point of the square is “moved” to fit in the circle, you just want to draw a new circle with the same area using a compass and a straightedge. Which, as you correctly point out, is proven to be impossible. On the other hand, in the transformations I quoted, you don’t care about the compass and straightedge, you instead make formulas (transformations) that distorts the shape of the square to make a circle. As an analogy, make a ball of putty and then distort it into the shape of a cube. Now you have a cube with the same mass and volume as the ball (but the surface area has changed).

(*) Except, as noted in the quoted math, the center of the square (the point (1/2, 1/2)) in the first transformation.

1 Like

Thank you. I will need a better understanding of mathematics to completely grasp the idea, but I see the direction that it goes toward.

So thank you again . . . although I still feel confused (and I recognize that it’s beyond the scope of a forum post to teach me advanced mathematics).

I picture the idea as a “one to one” correspondence of points between a circle and a square.

Yet any square and any circle contains an infinite number of points regardless of how big or small these shapes are.

People generally don’t grasp the ideas behind infinity, as most people think of it as a very large number . . . when–in reality–no number (no matter how large) is, somehow, “closer to infinity” by virtue of being a big number.

This is because any number–no matter how large–has an end, and by having an end it lacks the quality of endlessness that defines infinity.

This has odd implications that are counter-intuitive, like the hotel with infinite rooms that are all occupied, which also seems relevant to this squaring the circle business.

I would like you to imagine that you are the concierge in a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, and each room is occupied. Also, in order to stay in this hotel, there’s a rule that you have to be nice to your neighbors, or else you get evicted.

Well, a wealthy businessman comes in and says that he desperately needs a room, and he’s willing to offer you a very generous bribe in order to get him a place to sleep.

If your infinite hotel is completely occupied, then you might suspect that there are no rooms available.

Yet this isn’t true!!!

You accept the bribe, you send him to the first room, and he has to ask the occupant to relocate to the second room . . . and the occupant in the 2nd room then has to relocate to the third room, where this occupant nicely leaves and relocates to the 4th room, and so on.

Because this process goes on endlessly, nobody does without a room except when they spend five minutes crossing the hallway to talk to the occupant of the next higher room, and nobody ever has to check out of this hotel.

And this could be done as often as you want! Even though every room is occupied in the infinite hotel, you could still endlessly and constantly send more guests for rooms without ever running out . . . even though every room is occupied (Am I the only one, or does mathematical logic sometimes seem to get wierd and a little strange?)

This correspondence between the points of a square and the points of a circle seem similar to me, so I obviously don’t understand it. I’ll do my research, ask some math professors at the college, and I’ll get back to you.

One more thing - the transformations as posted do not preserve area. But that can be adjusted with some scaling parameters to the transformations. This also generalises to mapping a square with any area to a circle of any area, and the other way around.

1 Like

Thank you again. 20 characters

16 characters…

1 Like

Including a space…

1 Like

80 characters :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

1…

1 Like

And then…? :stuck_out_tongue:

and then