PI = 3.2

On May 6, 2023

I can assure you, Pi is in fact equal to 3.2. Nowhere else will you find this information because they are trying to hide the truth from you. We can thank the Americans, especially Edwin J. Goodwin, for generously demonstrating this in passing during a demonstration of squaring the circle in 1889. I propose a study of this fundamental proof of modern analysis and modern geometry.

First of all, let us clearly state the problem of squaring the circle. Suppose we have already constructed a circle, can we construct a square of the same area with a ruler and compass? The origin of the problem dates back to almost as long as mathematics has been around. To give you an idea, it is mentioned in papyri dating back to 1600 BCE.

Let’s move on to Goodwin’s proof, which is spectacular. His first lemma, if one can call it that, is to say that if we consider two points on a circle separated by 90 degrees, then the arc between the two points will be 8/7 times greater than the corresponding chord (see the drawing taken from the original publication). Furthermore, he adds that the ratio of the diameter to this chord is 7/10. (everything is on the drawing)

He then judiciously notes that four arcs make a complete circle. Thus, we have the ratio of perimeter/chord and the ratio of chord/diameter. We can obtain the ratio of perimeter to diameter, which is pi.

In our case: pi = 4 × 8/7 × 7/10 = 16/5 = 3.2

The rest of the proof is somewhat confusing, but even Evariste Galois was misunderstood, what can you do. He admits a result perhaps a little too quickly: the area of a circle is equal to the area of a square with the same perimeter. And what about the classic formula of our good old Archimedes? Well, totally false according to our Goodwin. But now, we have a formula for area that works for circles and squares.

In conclusion, to achieve our squaring of the circle, we can easily use this information to construct the square with the appropriate perimeter and thus obtain an area equal to that of the circle.

You will have understood, this article is disastrous. To tell you the truth, I’m not sure I’ve transcribed the reasoning as they are so cryptic in their expression. From the diagram alone, people who pay attention will have noticed that it already contradicts Pythagoras. The formula for the arc is also wrong and intrinsically linked to the new definition of pi. A really bad approximation, the earliest mentions of pi mention an approximate value of 3.16! Moreover, if we develop Goodwin’s calculations, we find different values of pi. The guy, he pulled and stripped Archimedes and then lost his belongings.

In fact, this character - who was a doctor - joined a long list of neophytes who succumbed to the sensationalism of the problem. Apparently, everyone can understand it, mathematicians have been looking for a solution for a long time and there have even been prizes at stake. What you need to know is that Goodwin arrived two years after Ferdinand von Lindermann, who precisely demonstrated the impossibility of squaring the circle with a ruler and compass. I invite you to read about it rather than our friend Goodwin.

Unfortunately, mathematical discoveries do not spread quickly. When Goodwin arrives with his patented proof at the Indiana parliament, he manages to convince politicians to vote for the sharing of the knowledge brought by the document. The kids in Indiana would have had the “luck” to possess exceptional education. The politicians do not understand this, and frankly even a mathematician would not want to read his paper, so they accept and pass the law.

At the same time, completely by chance, a mathematics professor C.A. Waldo passes by the parliament to see a friend. When this friend proudly shows him the law they have passed for “teaching a method for squaring the circle,” Waldo is curious. After probably two or three headaches, he tells his buddy that it is totally false. He then spoke to all the parliamentarians to explain their errors and especially communicated to the senators to ensure that the text is not adopted definitively.

Finally, the text does not pass and shame weighs on Indianapolis. This may be a lesson to be learned from this little story, there is a good reason why science must remain an independent instance.

And imagine if I talked about real math, how long it would be.

You will note the proof by measuring the torsion of the metal.