> I am simply saying that math should be simpler than it is and
> all the complexity is pointing to us getting the basics wrong

To be fair, "simpler" and "complexity" are quite subjective words,
it depends on what level of expertise you have

I didn't progress much past school maths, mostly because I don't
need to. The applied maths and trig etc I learned does for my day-
to-day stuff. Anybody who can do tertiary maths has my admiration

I used to subscribe to Scientific American and remember reading
an article about the proofs and calculations of tesselations. Very
abstract and heavy going. Apparently it proved something in the
end but my attention wandered back to the pictures of Jupiter
before I got to that

As abstract as it was, it was all securely founded on first principles,
so I'm not really sure what you mean by "pointing to us getting the
basics wrong". You have to use the time-tested ladder rungs on the
way to lofty heights

As always, everything is peer reviewed and every nook and cranny
is thoroughly poked into and has many torches shone in, probably
now even more so than ever, so if you get something wrong, you'll
be told about it in no uncertain terms

> Pi... what a smoking gun :-)

Ah, it's a wonderful magic number is pi
--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.