The Instigator
Ore_Ele
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
mongeese
Con (against)
Losing
20 Points

pie = 8.54 (approximately)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
Ore_Ele
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2010 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,955 times Debate No: 10902
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (8)

 

Ore_Ele

Pro

**This is meant to be funny and not serious and to get to go off on as many tangents as possible, I actually want to see how far from the original topic we can get without making complete leaps (have a path that others can follow)**

I submit that pie = 8.54 (approximately)

there is another mathematical possibility but I'm not saying. Xp
mongeese

Con

First, I would like to thank OreEle for this debate.

Now, I will put forth a definition.

http://www.debate.org...

pie - a double declared in the Java program Pie.java.

As one can clearly tell from the provided picture, pie does not equal 8.54, but instead 2.22. The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 1
Ore_Ele

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for taking up this challenge and hope to make it as interesting, eye scratching, and head opening as possible.

Since java is nothing but a program, only capable of doing what it is programed to do. I believe the program itself, rather then a snapshot of it, should be submitted for the testing of its accuracy and potential truthfulness.

But, even assuming that it is being accurate (which will later be challenged), what gives it the authority the define pie? What makes java the definer? I submit that java is not capable of defining pie, since all components of pie (being pi and e or p, i, and e) have long since been defined before java even existed.

now the reason that pie = 8.54 (approx) is due to pi*e, (3.14)[1]*(2.71)[2] (approx) and when working with non-number numbers (if you can follow that, lol) the "*" is not needed to express multiplication, where as with numbers it is, 2*6 cannot be written as 26.

[1] http://www.google.com...=
[2] http://www.google.com...=

I then submit then I control pie, because I own it, picture provided below.[3]

[3] http://images.cheezburger.com...
mongeese

Con

First things first. My opponent claims that Pie.java might not be accurate. However, that is impossible. The double pie is whatever I declare it to be in the program. If java stores the value of 2.22 in the memory space labeled "pie," then pie = 2.22.

My opponent claims that java is not capable of defining pie. This is a lie. Defining variables is what java programs do. I just so happened to define pie as 2.22. Therefore, the value of pie is 2.22, and not 8.54.

My opponent claims that the statement...
pie
...can be said to be equivelant to...
pi*e

He claims that this is because * is not needed to express multiplication for variables. However, in mathematics, the value for pi is always expressed by pi's symbol, http://eric22222.files.wordpress.com.... Just saying pi is actually a multiplication of p and i.

My opponent claims that my proposed constant, pie, is invalid, but his own proposed constant, pi, is valid. However, saying "pie" is more likely to reference to pie than pi * e. However, it's even more likely that all three of the letters are constants:

p, short for pico, is 10E-12 [1].
i, the imaginary unit, is the square root of -1 [3].
e, short for Euler's number, is approxomately 2.72 [2].

Therefore, p*i*e, or pie, is equal to 2.72iE-12.

Or, of course, we could multiply the three letters together in java:
http://www.debate.org...
p*i*e = 1187760

Again, pie =/= 8.54.

My opponent then posts a picture, claiming that it proves his ownership of pie. However, that picture is actually talking about me, not my opponent. I am the one who owns both pi and pie.

I look forward to your argument, OreEle.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...-
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...(mathematical_constant)
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Ore_Ele

Pro

My opponent has made a major mistake. He went from saying "As one can clearly tell from the provided picture, pie does not equal 8.54, but instead 2.22. The resolution is negated." in round 1 to "Therefore, p*i*e, or pie, is equal to 2.72iE-12." to "p*i*e = 1187760" in round 2. He has said that p*i*e = 1187760 and 2.72iE-12, thus contradicting himself.

He also used the same program, java, to say that pie is both 2.22 and 1187760, thus having java contradict itself.

Within CON's own support (his 2. in round 2), shows clearly in it that the ancients agree with me on pie and bow before me. Both the Egyptians and who ever the Proto-Semitic people are are shown bowing to me [1].

[1] http://cheezburger.com...

But beyond that pi, is traditionally written with the greek letter, but I'm not greek, therefore, it is understandable and expected for me to translate it to english (thus "pi"). And even though the letter itself is greek (regardless as to if I'm greek or not), we're in America and everything that comes here needs to adjust to us and our native language.

On to my argument...

A lot of different numbers for pie have been thrown up, but what is the true number for pie? Well, what is truth? "(2) the body of real things, events, and facts" [2] So how can something imaginary be truth? Of course, I'm referring to "i". How can pie be equal to something that is imaginary? This means that anything that is imaginary could be true. Logic will tell us imaginary is not true. But if more is needed, "1 a : existing only in imagination : lacking factual reality" [3]. So we know that imaginary cannot be true, and therefore not the true definition. So pie cannot equal anything with "i" in it.

[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

I shall save my trump card for the 5th round and pass this on to my opponent.
mongeese

Con

My opponent claims that I am contradicting myself. However, I am merely saying that the value of pie is completely ambiguous, and therefore cannot be affirmed to be 8.54. It could just as easily, if not more easily, be 2.22, 2.72iE-12, or 1187780.

Java merely defined pie in two different ways. One method was the double "pie," while the other was found by multiplying the ASCII values of the letters 'p', 'i', and 'e'.

My opponent's source does not show Egyptians and Proto-Semitic peoples bowing to OreEle, but to Wikipedia.

My opponent claims that he is justified in writing out pi to represent the ratio of the circumference and diameter of a circle because he is not Greek. However, all people who learn math write pi in Greek when it is used in a math problem, even those that are not Greek [1]. The reason is because pi in a math problem is the multiplication of the values of p and i.

My opponent claims that pie must have a true value. However, imaginary numbers such as pie (p * i * e) do not have true values. The product pie is an imaginary number, and must therefore have an imaginary value. As pie is not a true number, it need not have a true value.

In conclusion, pie is either a double equivalent to 2.22, an ASCII product of 1187760, or an imaginary product 2.72iE-12. My opponent has failed to affirm the idea of pie approximating 8.54. With that, I'll leave it to my opponent to come up with a valid proof of the resolution.

1. http://by.genie.uottawa.ca...
Debate Round No. 3
Ore_Ele

Pro

"My opponent's source does not show Egyptians and Proto-Semitic peoples bowing to OreEle, but to Wikipedia."

Oh yeah, I see it now, it must have been the way my computer screen was angled.

I still have 2 arguments left to prove my point, I will only present 1 here, and 1 in round 5 (that way we make sure that we have stuff to argue).

Note, that in the first round I said "pie = 8.54 (approximately)" with "approximately" being the key word.

approximately means "1 : located close together
2 : nearly correct or exact " [1]

note that in the definition of approximate, there is nothing concrete about that definition, the word "close" and "nearly" are entirely upto personal opinion. And as I am the one who started this debate, only I know what I meant in the orginal statement. Now, I'm sure my opponent will make a counter argument involving significant figures, and while I know that they are a common way of determining what is approximate and what is not, they are not the only way, nor the way that I intended.

I would also like to point out that in my argument that pie cannot be imaginary, that it must be real, is due to the fact that we have pie in the real world, it does not only exist in paper and in theories, therefore it must have a real value. My opponent has done nothing to counter this argument, only said that no it doesn't.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
mongeese

Con

My opponent puts forth the idea that 2.22 is nearly 8.54. As he predicted, I am going to point to sig figs [1], in which numbers are approxomated in a very systematic way. If a value is said to be approxomately 8.54, that is basically saying that its value is somewhere between 8.535 and 8.545. My opponent makes no argument this round as to why this must be so.

My opponent claims that he has his own subjective interpretation of "nearly." However, what I provide is an objective, unbiased, standard method of determine whether or not a number is "near" another number. My own method should be held above my opponents, as it is objective and unbiased, free of the subjectivity and bias of my opponent's intentions. Any unstated intentions would be abusive to the concept of fair debate.

My opponent claims that pie cannot be objective, because it exists in the real world. However, it exists as a food [2]. Types of food have no numerical values to be equivelant to. Pie does not equal 8.54. It only equals pie, or ingredients plus crust, or something along those lines. As my opponent claims that pie is not a number, he concedes this debate.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
Ore_Ele

Pro

I would like to take this final opportunity to thank my opponent for this debate. This is only my 2nd completed debate and I look forward to many more.

And as this is my final post in this debate and there were no official rules or format established, my opponent will be allowed to post new material in his final post and I won't get an opportunity to respond. So I will attempt to predict what he will say and try to refute those predictions. But I will start by continuing the current arguments and adding my last one.

As I predicted, my opponent chose to say that significant figures is the best, most unbiased method of determining approximations. To this, I agree, that it is the most "unbiased" method, but it still is not the only method. People often say that $39.95 is approximately $40.00 to make the math easier for personal budget calculations. While this approximation is not in accordance with sig figs, it is still a common and accepted use of approximations. In actual accounting, companies are required to calculate depreciation (they usually use a straight line method, though there are others). Companies MUST APPROXIMATE how long an item will be used (lets say a truck) and what the resale value will be[1]. Even if they are wrong about the approximate resale value, they have to make an estimate (which is a synonym for approximation[2]).

In an attempt to refute any evidence that my opponent presents in his final post, I believe he will say that "i" (imaginary things) can exist in the real world. And to "prove" this, he will show you all this, http://images.google.com.... This seems like quite solid evidence that "i" can and does exist in the real world. However, I would like to point that this unnatural forcing of the imagination into the real world, results in disaster. There is an imaginary fusor inside that forces the imaginary world to exist in the real world. This is why the iphones have poor battery life, and why you cannot open them up to change the battery. And this technology is still really dangerous, these fusors have a history of blowing up [3], proof that they are not meant to exist in our realm and can only exist temporarily with massive assistance.

On to my final argument. What is X = 9^(1/2)? Traditional math says X=3, but also, X=(-3). X has MORE THEN ONE SOLUTION (forgive the all caps, I don't know the code for bold here). Math equations are free to have multiple solutions, ergo, X does = 3 and it does = -3. And so pie can equal 8.54 (approx) and it can equal other things as well. And since my opponent has done nothing to show that pie =/= 8.54 (approximately), he has only provided other things that pie equals, which it is free to have more then one.

[1] http://accountinginfo.com...
[2] http://thesaurus.reference.com...
[3] http://news.cnet.com...
mongeese

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his second debate on DDO. Hopefully, he will have numerous more in the future.

Firstly, my opponent continues to put forward the notion that 2.22 is approxomately 8.54, while conceding that sig figs are the most unbiased method of deciding the answer.

For the dollar example, $39.95 IS approxomately $40.00, even with sig figs.

For the accounting example, companies must deal with very large sums. When approxomating, they do not approxomate to the nearest dollar, but to perhaps the nearest ten thousand dollars. The more sig figs used in the approxomation, the harder it is to be accurate. Therefore, companies estimate broadly. To a large, multi-million dollar company, $23,987 may be approxomately $20,000. However, when my opponent already predicts pie to equal 8.54, not even 8 would be an appropriate answer, because too many sig figs have already been predicted.

My opponent makes a rather elaborate explanation as to why I cannot bring up iPhones. However, my opponent does not continue to hold the only idea that keeps pie from being an imaginary number, the theory that pie must be a real number. I have already explained that imaginary numbers are imaginary, and pie, having i, could easily be an imaginary number. My opponent dropped this point.

Finally, my opponent claims that in the equation X = 9^(1/2), X equals both 3 and -3. However, this is rather false. X can equal either 3 or -3, and still fulfill the equation to be true, but it cannot be both, because -3 =/= 3.

To continue this, let's say I have a parabolic application in which I threw a ball into the air with a velocity of eight feet per second. Therefore, the altitude of the ball is graphed by:

a = -16t^2 + 8t + 6

Now, I am given that the ball is currently 6.64 feet into the air. This means that t is either equal to 0.1 seconds or 0.4 seconds. However, t cannot equal both 0.1 seconds and 0.4 seconds at the same time, because 0.1 =/= 0.4. I would be unable to affirm a resolution that t is 0.1 seconds, becase it could be 0.4 seconds instead.

To bring that idea to this example, my opponent continues to claim that pie can equal 8.54. However, I have already attacked the idea of pie being used as a substitute for pi * e, due to the large ambiguousness. My opponent actually dropped most of his contentions in Round 4, leaving only the arguments for vague approxomation and against an imaginary value of pie. I have already countered both of these.

However, even if I were to give to my opponent the POSSIBILITY of pie being equal to 8.54, this in no way guarantees pie to be equal to 8.54. Remember, pie would only possibly be 8.54, but it could even more likely be 2.72iE-12. My opponent, being both PRO and the Instigator, would have to prove that pie cannot be 2.22 or 2.72iE-12 or 1187760, but only 8.54.

In conclusion, pie is much more likely to be 2.22 (double declared in Java), 1187760 (product of ASCII values of 'p', 'i', and 'e'), or 2.72iE-12 (product of Euler's number e, the imaginary number i, and the magnitude pico), than it is to be 8.54 (pi * e). My opponent cannot prove his own interpretation of pie to be the correct one, and therefore cannot win this debate.

OreEle, I would like to thank you for this debate again, and good luck in your future debates.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Asking for an RFD is definitely not harassment. If you want me to give an RFD, that's great, although sometimes people complain that I am "debating in the comments section" when I give an RFD on my own debate.
Posted by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
Ore_Ele
Is he not allowed to vote without being harassed? No one question your voting choice of awarding 6 points to yourself.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Demauscian, do you have any RFD of giving all seven points to PRO?
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
This was a good debate, fairly close. I voted CON.
Posted by Cherymenthol 7 years ago
Cherymenthol
I surprised no one took herbrew, word and number value...
Posted by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
Ore_Ele
I'm wishing for one more round right now. Though I imagine, after that round, I'd still wish for one more round, and so on forever.
Posted by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
Ore_Ele
Pie = People In England...that's our most favorite dessert? And our weight problem? I never knew.
Posted by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
Your both wrong. Pie= americas weight problem. Pie = Americas most famous dessert.
Pie= Delicious and desirable flavor.
Posted by XimenBao 7 years ago
XimenBao
One of the funnier humor debates so far.
Posted by bigtree 7 years ago
bigtree
I have so far loled.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
Ore_Ele
Ore_ElemongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Vote Placed by curious18 7 years ago
curious18
Ore_ElemongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Vote Placed by pbplk58 7 years ago
pbplk58
Ore_ElemongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
Ore_ElemongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Demauscian 7 years ago
Demauscian
Ore_ElemongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Ore_ElemongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by XimenBao 7 years ago
XimenBao
Ore_ElemongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Ore_ElemongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06