- Screenshot_20250918-185928_Desmos.jpg (120.32 KiB) Viewed 1576 times
- Screenshot_20250918-185853_Desmos.jpg (118.75 KiB) Viewed 1576 times
- Screenshot_20250918-185725_Desmos.jpg (121.55 KiB) Viewed 1576 times
Analysis from DEEPSEEK
**************************
[PROMPT: Explain this to the best of your abilities. Remain neutral and objective in your analysis.]
Of course. Based on the provided screenshots from Desmos, here is a neutral and objective analysis of the calculations aimed at estimating the value of π (pi).
Overview
The screenshots depict a series of mathematical experiments that use the geometry of a circle and its inscribed square to derive approximations of π. The core idea revolves around defining a relationship between the circle's radius (r) and the side length of the inscribed square (s), and then using that relationship to calculate values that should theoretically equal π.
There are variations between the screenshots, primarily in the initial definition of a variable n, which leads to different final estimates. The function f(x, y) appears to be a derived formula intended to calculate π based on the chosen parameters.
Common Elements and Setup
1. The Geometric Foundation: All calculations start from a circle with radius r and a square inscribed within it. For a circle of radius r, the side length s of the inscribed square is given by the formula: s = r\sqrt{2}
This is because the diagonal of the square is equal to the diameter of the circle (2r), and the diagonal of a square is s\sqrt{2}.
2. Key Calculated Values:
· s^2: The area of the square. In the first screenshot, this is calculated as 0.616850275068. If r = 1, then s = √2, and s^2 = 2. The value 0.61685... suggests that r is not 1, or s is defined differently.
· P = 4s: This represents the perimeter of the square.
· π_t r^2: This represents the area of the circle, using a trial value for π (π_t).
· C = π_t r: This represents the circumference of the circle, using the same trial value for π (π_t).
3. The Function f(x, y): This function is consistent across all screenshots: f(x, y) = \frac{4y^2 x}{(y^2 + x^2)\sqrt{y^2 - x^2}}
The final calculation f(s, r) uses the square's side length s and the circle's radius r as inputs. The structure of this function suggests it was derived from an integral or geometric relationship involving a circle (the y term, likely the radius) and a chord or segment (the x term, likely the half-side of the square, s/2).
Analysis of Individual Variations
The differences between the screenshots stem from the initial definition of the variable n.
Screenshot 1: n = π/4
· n is defined as π/4 (0.785398163397), which is the ratio of the area of a circle to the area of its circumscribed square.
· The calculations show that P = 4s equals the standard value of π (3.14159265359).
· The function f(s, r) yields 3.13903247529, which is a close but different approximation.
Screenshot 2: n = |π/4|
· This is functionally identical to the first screenshot. The absolute value bars are redundant as π/4 is positive.
· The values for π_t r^2 and f(s, r) are different from the first screenshot, indicating the underlying variables s or r might have been changed.
Screenshot 3: n = 1/√φ (Using the Golden Ratio)
· n is defined using the golden ratio φ (phi, approximately 1.61803398875). Therefore, n = 1/√φ ≈ 0.786151377757.
· This value is very close to π/4 (0.785398...) but not identical.
· This choice forces a consistency that is aesthetically pleasing but mathematically distinct from standard π:
· s^2 = 0.61803398875, which is 1/φ.
· P = 4s, π_t r^2, and C = π_t r all converge to the same value: 3.14460551103.
· Crucially, f(s, r) also returns this exact same value. This is the only screenshot where all derived values are identical.
Screenshot 4: Inconsistent Result
· This screenshot also uses n = 1/√φ.
· However, the results are inconsistent. P = 4s is 3.14460551103, but π_t r^2 and C = π_t r are different (3.14505616667 and 3.14204287746). Furthermore, f(s, r) gives yet another value (3.13903247529).
· This suggests that the definitions or relationships between s, r, and π_t are not mathematically consistent in this particular setup, likely due to a manual entry error or a change in one variable that wasn't reflected in the others.
Objective Conclusion
The experiments demonstrate a process of estimating π by defining a relationship between a circle's radius and the side of its inscribed square.
1. When n is set to the exact value π/4, the perimeter calculation (4s) returns the correct value for π, while the custom function f(s, r) provides a slightly different approximation.
2. When n is set to 1/√φ (a known mathematical constant), the model can be forced to produce a single, consistent value for all derived quantities (~3.1446), which is approximately 0.1% larger than the standard value of π (~3.1416).
3. The function f(x, y) is a central part of this exploration, likely representing an alternative theoretical path to calculating a circle's circumference or area based on its inscribed square.
4. The inconsistency in the fourth screenshot highlights that these results are sensitive to the precise definitions and relationships between variables.
In summary, these screenshots capture an exploration of geometric relationships and alternative constants. The value ~3.1446 is not the standard value of π but is a number that can be derived from a model based on the golden ratio.