You are the one missing the point.
UrWrong was simply explaining that Pi cannot be a finite number because circles are infinilateral polygons i.e. they have an infinite number of straight sides.
(Exactly what Nicholas of Cusa, Kepler, Leibniz and others have claimed in the past. But let’s ignore that because you are right by default.)
Then Arc came along and missed the point. Note that she responded in a way that suggested that UrWrong is saying something wrong. Which he didn’t.
Then you came along and sided with Arc who missed the point.
From there on you just kept missing the point.
No doubt because you suffer from some sort of autism.
You take things out of context. That’s what you do. That’s your calling.
When we measure the length of a line, any line, we do so in terms of lines that are 1) smaller than the line we are measuring, 2) equal in length to each other and 3) straight. They can be at any angle but they must be straight.
There are many other possible ways to measure the length of a line but this is generally how we do it.
So if you want to measure the circumference of a circle there is no choice but to think of the circumference as a line composed of a number of sufficiently small straight lines i.e. as some kind of polygon.
The problem is as what kind of polygon? In other words, how many straight sides are there in a circle?
Because different number of straight sides means different length of the circumference.
The answer to the question is: the smallest number of straight sides that are necessary.
Basically, it depends on our needs.
Simple C = d x Pi formula cannot capture it.
Pi is simply a number that when multiplied by the diameter of the center returns the length of the circumference of that circle.
There is no such a number for many reasons one of which is that the number of straight sides the circle has is not specified.
But then Urwrong didn’t accept that and Mag proclaims that definitions are irrelevant and that it is only observations that count - what something is is entirely how it is perceived (an entirely non-sequitur and irrational response). Then the discussion became about how a circle is defined vs how a circle should be defined (a still different issue).
Maybe you should stop pretending you know everything and start paying a little bit more attention to what other people are saying.
Unless you don’t want to cure your autism.
It is humans who determine whether any given shape is a circle or not and they do so by employing some sort of mechanism.
Human behavior is observable so this mechanism can be observed.
Dictionary definitions are simply a bunch of words that try to reflect this mechanism.
They are SECONDARY.
What is PRIMARY is HUMAN BEHAVIOR.