|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New wrote:
> Actually, I was thinking of actual real space, where the same distances
> are different depending who is measuring them. What's a circle for me
> isn't a circle for you, so I find it hard to imagine a good definition
> for "pi" under such circumstances.
Do you mean as in special relativity? In such a case you'd probably
have to define a circle under the Minkowski metric, in which case it
won't look much like a circle. I *think* that in such a case all
circles end up having zero circumfrence, but I haven't actually worked
out the math so there's a good chance I'm wrong here.
Agreed that a pi-like constant really only makes sense in Euclidean
space though.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |