Subject: Re: Reply to Do Points Have Area

Circular Coordinate System

Subject:      Re: Reply to Do Points Have Area?

Author:       Jesse Yoder < jesse@flowresearch.com>

Date:         26 Jan 98 18:20:29 -0500 (EST)

Hi John -

I have read through your expression of frustration regarding my

discussion of circular geometry. After offline discussions with you, I

have come to realize that I am addressing two separate issues in the

new geometry I am developing, and I haven't been distinguishing them

adequately. These issues are as follows:

1. Finding a new geometry that provides a rational value for the area

of a circle and does not rely on pi. This has to do with CIRCULAR

GEOMETRY, and it involves developing an alternative to the Cartesian

Coordinate System.

2. Finding an analysis of the number line that avoids the paradoxes

generated by the assumption that a line is made up of infinitely many

dimensionless points.  This has to do with developing the concept of

Points (i.e, points with area), and it involves developing an

alternative to Euclidean geometry.

I now believe that it is not possible to easily develop a Circular

Geometry (#1) that provides an alternative to the Cartesian Coordinate

system in terms of Points -- instead, I believe it should be done in

terms of a series of circles that provide an alternative to the X-Y

Cartesian Coordinate system. Once this is done, one could give either

a Euclidean analysis of the lines contained in this geometry, saying

it is made up of Euclidean points, or could then go on to analyze

these lines as made of of Points, with the number of Points changing

as the unit of measurement changes. I prefer the second of these two

options.

In terms of developing Circular Geometry, an alterntative to the

Cartesian Coordinate system (#1), I would suggest the followng:

Replacing the X axis in the Cartesian Coordinate system with a series

of unit circles laid out end to end in an east and west direction,

each with an area of one round inch, and a radius of 1/2 inch. These

unit circles INTERSECT (share a common point) at the interger points--

1, 2, 3, etc., and likewise on the negative side (-1, -2, -3, etc.),

as well as at the point of origin. These are circles with an area of

one round inch (not solid Points).

Likewise, replacing the Y axis in the Cartesian Coordinate system with

a series of unit circles laid out end to end in a north and south

direction, each with an area of one round inch, and a radius of 1/2

inch. These unit circles INTERSECT (share a common point) at the

integer points 1,2, and 3 (in the positive direction) and -1, -2, -3,

etc. (in the negative direction), as well as at the point of origin.

These are circles with an area of one round inch (not solid Points).

Once this structure is set up, it is possible to use these unit

circles to give the area of any circle in this circular coordinate

system, using the formula 4*r*r. Here r = the radius of the circle,

defined in the usual way (the distance from the center to the edge of

the circle). So a circle with a radius of 1/2 inch has an area of one

inch. A circle with a radius of 2 inches (and diameter = 4) has an

area of 4 round inches. The formula d*d, where d = diameter, also

works to find round inches.

Once this structure is set up, it is possible to take the FURTHER step

of saying the lines making up the radius are made up of finitely many

Points with area, rather than being made of of infinitely many

dimensionless points. To say this is to give a non-Euclidean

interpretation of this Circular Geometry. While I want to say this, I

believe that the Circular Geometry described above (as many unit

circles laid end to end replacing the x and y axes) can stand on its

own with a Euclidean or a non-Euclidean interpretation.

Once the two sets of intersecting series of circles are drawn, they

can be used as a frame of reference for describing other circles

within the geometric plane, much as the x and y axes are currently

used in Cartesian Coordinate geometry.

I hope this helps describe more clearly what I have in mind. I will

desribe the second alternative (geometry with Points) in a separate

post.

Jesse

©1999-2000
Flow Research
27 Water Street
Wakefield, MA 01880
781-224-7550
781-224-7552 (fax)
email: info@flowresearch.com