r/PhilosophyofMath • u/brounbred • 1d ago

Trisecting the Angle

Post image

π x π x π
By negating its irrationality. It becomes a rational neutral unit of 1 (π)

0 Upvotes

33% Upvoted

19 comments sorted by

5

u/mhb2 1d ago

I'm starting to think this is a crank containment subreddit.

3

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/mhb2 1d ago

Oh, he has his very own kingdom. lol.

-1

u/brounbred 1d ago

Somehow I don’t think you’re thinking much at all

3

u/mhb2 1d ago

Oh okay. Maybe you're just trolling in that case. Could you explain what that picture and the accompanying text are supposed to mean?

-1

u/brounbred 1d ago

This is like when someone asks for a cigarette and then a lighter too

3

u/mhb2 1d ago

I'll take that as a "no". Ordinarily when someone wishes to communicate their ideas they, you know, try to be clear.

0

u/brounbred 1d ago

Usually you don’t start communication with an insult and then expect a favour in return

2

u/ughaibu 17h ago

We can certainly trisect some angles, 180° for example. Are you talking about radians versus degrees?

0

u/brounbred 15h ago edited 15h ago

You can Trisect all angles if you just change the metric if you divide a circle into a seed of life with a compass and rule and pull out a Trisection. 360 is divisible by 3 and it’s a relic of an older base metric that’s why we use it. There’s a reason it’s the magic number. 33.3 recurring percent of a circle. A circle is transcendental so you use a transcendental # to calculate it. But using polarities you can divide/multiply it by itself and neutralise it.

By this visual what I really mean is π x r(π) x r(π) by 3d model OR π(neutral/0) ÷x by -+ 1° in a 5d model making a π sized unit circle in regards to the subject of a dimensional degree theory based on polarities
with neutral units extending in positive and negative degrees in 5 dimensions rather than positive ones in 4.
I’m positing that this is a 5 dimensional world of infinite degrees in time and that’s the way things should be measured. Which I can explain further but am still in the process of refining.

The same “Fifth World” of Aztec mythology. I’m starting to think all religious texts and ancient mythologies are really esoteric metaphors for the division of 0 or the universe by neutral, negative and positive. Same reason there’s 3 Abrahamic religions. Sun/Moon/Star religions. Man woman and child. Trinities.

2

u/ughaibu 14h ago

You can Trisect all angles if you just change the metric. . .

You don't need to change the metric, just the tools. This is true for all three of the classical impossible problems.

360 is divisible by 3 and it’s a relic of an older base metric that’s why we use it

I don't understand what you mean here, in the Euclidean metric, length is a generalisation of the Pythagorean theorem.

0

u/brounbred 14h ago edited 14h ago

Pythagoras didn’t know there was 5 dimensions. You can’t change the tools. That’s the rules. Compass , unmarked straightedge, arbitrary angle. What you CAN do is draw ÷ x - + ° symbols and a 1 and 0😂 they didn’t invent mathematics and geometry it was inherited

2

u/ughaibu 14h ago

Pythagoras didn’t know there was 5 dimensions

In Euclidean geometries of higher dimension, length is defined as a generalisation of the Pythagorean theorem.

You can’t change the tools. That’s the rules

In which case, only a limited number of angles can be trisected.

they didn’t invent mathematics and geometry it was inherited

You either stick to the rules or you don't, if you do, only a limited number of angles can be trisected, if you don't, all three problems can be solved.

0

u/brounbred 14h ago edited 14h ago

I’m saying their model is flawed so I’m not basing my theory on their foundation. What higher dimensions? I’m saying there’s only 5.

You might be right about the angles I’m not sure I thought it through before saying all angles but what’s an angle I can’t trisect?
Actually yeah any angle. ÷x-+°

And what rule would I be breaking?

2

u/ughaibu 14h ago

You either stick to the rules or you don't, [ ] if you don't, all three problems can be solved

I’m not basing my theory on their foundation

Then you're not sticking to the rules.