Discussion:
How accurate the volume of a sphere of radius (r^n), where (n) represents the number of known digits of (PI), and (r) is any constructible number?
(too old to reply)
bassam king karzeddin
2016-09-24 13:45:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I think, there isn't any accuracy then!?

Regards

Bassam Karzeddin

Date: 24th, sept. 2016
bassam king karzeddin
2016-09-25 07:59:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 4:45:21 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> I think, there isn't any accuracy then!?
>
> Regards
>
> Bassam Karzeddin
>
> Date: 24th, sept. 2016

How accurate is the volume of a sphere of radius equals to (10^n), where (n) represents the number of known digits of (PI)?
bassam king karzeddin
2017-09-20 18:32:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:00:00 AM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 4:45:21 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > I think, there isn't any accuracy then!?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Bassam Karzeddin
> >
> > Date: 24th, sept. 2016
>
> How accurate is the volume of a sphere of radius equals to (10^n), where (n) represents the number of known digits of (PI)?

Why mathematickers avoid answering this simple question? wonder!
BKK
Zelos Malum
2017-09-29 10:36:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Den onsdag 20 september 2017 kl. 20:32:42 UTC+2 skrev bassam king karzeddin:
> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:00:00 AM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 4:45:21 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > > I think, there isn't any accuracy then!?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Bassam Karzeddin
> > >
> > > Date: 24th, sept. 2016
> >
> > How accurate is the volume of a sphere of radius equals to (10^n), where (n) represents the number of known digits of (PI)?
>
> Why mathematickers avoid answering this simple question? wonder!
> BKK

Because you are juvenile. The degree of error is simply p-\pi where p is your choosen approximation. Difficult huh?
bassam king karzeddin
2016-09-26 09:48:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 4:45:21 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> I think, there isn't any accuracy then!?
>
> Regards
>
> Bassam Karzeddin
>
> Date: 24th, sept. 2016

To simplify my question farther, I would like to restate it as this:

1) How accurate is the volume of a sphere of radius equals to (10^n), where (n) represents the given number of accurate digits of (PI)?

2) Isn't scaling the (sphere with solid surface) and immersing it in water, them measuring the volume of water according to Archimedes physical law would give a better accurate result?

Regards
Bassam Karzeddin
26th, Sept. 2016
bassam king karzeddin
2017-07-19 18:09:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 4:45:21 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> I think, there isn't any accuracy then!?
>
> Regards
>
> Bassam Karzeddin
>
> Date: 24th, sept. 2016

Hint: choose first a radius (r = 1), then conclude the degree of accuracy you get for the volume of the sphere upon chosen number (n) of accurate digits of (Pi)
then, change the radius to any constructible number (one time with very small radius, and the second time with relatively large radius) and observe the accuracy change

Also avoid using only the notation of (Pi), since this is so meaningless in reality

and finally, put down your own conclusions (so easy task), sure

Oops, this would be a very good research for you for sure

BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-07-23 09:02:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 9:09:47 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 4:45:21 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > I think, there isn't any accuracy then!?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Bassam Karzeddin
> >
> > Date: 24th, sept. 2016
>
> Hint: choose first a radius (r = 1), then conclude the degree of accuracy you get for the volume of the sphere upon chosen number (n) of accurate digits of (Pi)
> then, change the radius to any constructible number (one time with very small radius, and the second time with relatively large radius) and observe the accuracy change
>
> Also avoid using only the notation of (Pi), since this is so meaningless in reality
>
> and finally, put down your own conclusions (so easy task), sure
>
> Oops, this would be a very good research for you for sure
>
> BKK

Oops, are you tooooo shameful top professional mathematickers to do this so simple exercise and announce the results loudly? wonder

So, let only those clever students do it for you for sure

BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-07-29 14:44:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 12:02:25 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 9:09:47 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 4:45:21 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > > I think, there isn't any accuracy then!?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Bassam Karzeddin
> > >
> > > Date: 24th, sept. 2016
> >
> > Hint: choose first a radius (r = 1), then conclude the degree of accuracy you get for the volume of the sphere upon chosen number (n) of accurate digits of (Pi)
> > then, change the radius to any constructible number (one time with very small radius, and the second time with relatively large radius) and observe the accuracy change
> >
> > Also avoid using only the notation of (Pi), since this is so meaningless in reality
> >
> > and finally, put down your own conclusions (so easy task), sure
> >
> > Oops, this would be a very good research for you for sure
> >
> > BKK
>
> Oops, are you tooooo shameful top professional mathematickers to do this so simple exercise and announce the results loudly? wonder
>
> So, let only those clever students do it for you for sure
>
> BKK

Didn't anyone secretly do this very simple exercise? wonder!

Sure, many secretly had done it, but frankly, they are so shameful to announce the shocking results publically, because they know the consequences for sure

I really can't help you by doing every STEP before your eyes, if you are so lazy and so careless

So, let everything is working and running smoothly in your minds

But, truly if you can't do this simplest exercise, then I will do it for you once I get enough time and you wouldn't like it for sure

BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2017-08-05 12:17:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 5:44:24 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 12:02:25 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 9:09:47 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 4:45:21 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > > > I think, there isn't any accuracy then!?
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Bassam Karzeddin
> > > >
> > > > Date: 24th, sept. 2016
> > >
> > > Hint: choose first a radius (r = 1), then conclude the degree of accuracy you get for the volume of the sphere upon chosen number (n) of accurate digits of (Pi)
> > > then, change the radius to any constructible number (one time with very small radius, and the second time with relatively large radius) and observe the accuracy change
> > >
> > > Also avoid using only the notation of (Pi), since this is so meaningless in reality
> > >
> > > and finally, put down your own conclusions (so easy task), sure
> > >
> > > Oops, this would be a very good research for you for sure
> > >
> > > BKK
> >
> > Oops, are you tooooo shameful top professional mathematickers to do this so simple exercise and announce the results loudly? wonder
> >
> > So, let only those clever students do it for you for sure
> >
> > BKK
>
> Didn't anyone secretly do this very simple exercise? wonder!
>
> Sure, many secretly had done it, but frankly, they are so shameful to announce the shocking results publically, because they know the consequences for sure
>
> I really can't help you by doing every STEP before your eyes, if you are so lazy and so careless
>
> So, let everything is working and running smoothly in your minds
>
> But, truly if you can't do this simplest exercise, then I will do it for you once I get enough time and you wouldn't like it for sure
>
> BKK

*
bassam king karzeddin
2017-09-13 16:08:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 4:45:21 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> I think, there isn't any accuracy then!?
>
> Regards
>
> Bassam Karzeddin
>
> Date: 24th, sept. 2016

Sept. 13, 2017
BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2018-01-09 18:26:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 4:45:21 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> I think, there isn't any accuracy then!?
>
> Regards
>
> Bassam Karzeddin
>
> Date: 24th, sept. 2016

Why do you avoid to answer such legal questions? wonder!

Do I have to make everything myself despite throwing your so empty skulls with biggest hints ever made before? wonder!

But, truly I don't have much time, so let us see your skills?
BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2018-01-16 12:50:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 4:45:21 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> I think, there isn't any accuracy then!?
>
> Regards
>
> Bassam Karzeddin
>
> Date: 24th, sept. 2016

Why moron professional mathematicians avoid such a legal question? no wonder!

BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2018-02-12 14:25:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 3:50:28 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 4:45:21 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > I think, there isn't any accuracy then!?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Bassam Karzeddin
> >
> > Date: 24th, sept. 2016
>
> Why moron professional mathematicians avoid such a legal question? no wonder!
>
> BKK

***
bassam king karzeddin
2018-02-20 15:50:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 4:45:21 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> I think, there isn't any accuracy then!?
>
> Regards
>
> Bassam Karzeddin
>
> Date: 24th, sept. 2016

So amazing that almost every mathematicker avoid this questionary, but we know the true reasons for sure

BKK
Loading...