### Don't Have An Account?

+154

# If you think about it, it's impossible to look upon a

The voters have decided that Number3 is

**right**! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.### Related Posts

Also about

-148Nancy says Biden shouldn't "dignify" a debate with Trump with his presence, but we know the **real***real*reason,

**amirite?**

I'm not sure how people can vote this down. You're entirely right. Even if done with a computer programme all you have to do is zoom in to see the pixels proving it's not perfect. Unless they voted down because they see it as one of those post that's so obviously right that it's annoying.

To be honest they probably thought "No, I've seen a circle before ", you know what people on amirite can be like.

I downvoted because I don't think it's an interesting idea.

You can vote on posts however you like. Personally, I'm not going to vote up posts that are just statements of fact that it's impossible to have an opinion on.

I actually didn't post it intending it as a statement of fact, it was something I thought up but wasn't sure about, sort of as a "am I right or am I missing something?" kind of way.

I wasn't referring to this post, just that there are a variety of reasons to downvote a post.

An interesting idea, however irrational numbers are no more infinite then rational numbers; the only difference is rational numbers have a pattern. With rational numbers, one still has to consider the infinite number of zeroes. Also, by your argument many triangles would be equally impossible to create. For example in a right triangle with opposite and adjacent sides each 1m, the hypoteneuse would have to have a length of root 2m, an irrational number.

Electrons perhaps?

Nah, even electrons aren't small enough to be measured to infinity decimal places.

I just mean that presumably they're perfectly spherical. Force is equal in all directions implying spherical makeup of the matter. No particles smaller than it after all to make up straight lines (which are the real illusion)

This only kind of has to do with what we're taking about but it is incredibly interesting.

Also, by definition, a circle is a set of points and points are 0 dimensional.

If you're having a little trouble with this one I'll try and explain what I mean here.

Say you have a circle that has a diameter of 5cm, that means the circumference would have to be 5πcm, which, because π is an irrational number, would have to be an irrational number too, which means that the circumference wouldn't be a finite length, which all lines have to be.

It will have a finite and also rational length. We just can't express it using our 10-based number system. A circle will still not be possible because no side can be shorter than one Planck's length.

Well Isn't a circle infinite sides? ugg. my head hurts. You are right of course, but there is so much added to it. It's not possible to have a circle.

and I thought I was the first person to think of this...

shows you that original ideas don't exist either