>>16722693
I am bothered that we keep associating this measurement of a circle with mathematics itself.
We are treating the thing that we measure, as a measuring stick, and using it as such, while simultaneously saying it is both rational and irrational at the exact same time.
Then sticking a 1 onto it.
That bothers me the most.

Simply redefining the numerals into different numerals does not assign a definition to Pi aside from an infinite geometric chaos that cannot be understood except to treat it as if it is not infinite, and it is not irrational.

That goes beyond the boundaries of common sense, just because it works?
It means yall have no comprehension of what Pi actually is, and are instead jumping past comprehension into numerals, in which you will not find a definition unless you solve it and proved it to be very large, yet rational and finite, at which point you would still not understand exactly what it is that you are dealing with.

If it was proven tomorrow that Pi was rational and finite, yet extremely large, then what would your very best estimate/guesstimate be as to what Pi actually really is.
Would you still stick with "just a funny circle number that is really big and we don't know why so stop asking and just assign it a 1"?