wtf wrote: Of course pi is finite. It's a real number between 3 and 4 on the number line.

You are right that the decimal representation of pi has infinitely many digits. But that doesn't make pi infinite. In fact pi only contains a finite amount of information.

Note that I completely expressed pi using only 15 characters. In other words if I wanted to completely transmit all the digits of pi to a friend on Mars, I would not have to send infinitely many digits; I'd only have to send the 15 character formula and they could use that to calculate as many digits as they want.

I don't see how we can say that pi only

contains a finite amount of information. I understand we can

represent this infinite amount of information in a finite manner.

But this is not the same as pi itself containing a finite amount of information. If pi consists of an infinity of digits, then that is an infinite amount of information because each number is a bit of information.Where we can divide a circle into 3 wholly equal parts using pi, then pi is infinite. 1/3 is a finite part of something. Pi is more like a tool to do something with than a finite part of something.

Google says nothing of the kind. Pi is a finite number, it's a real number between 3 and 4.

I meant that it says that it consists of an infinity of digits.

Well 1/3 is exactly expressed with only three characters. Again you are confusing a number with its representation.

See my above point on the representation of pi versus the value of pi.

If you prefer, and I explained this several times in my previous post and urge you to slow down and comprehend this point: I do not need to talk about infinitely many 3's at all, and from now on I won't do that anymore.

What I am saying is that I can get AS CLOSE AS I WANT to 1/3 by taking a large enough FINITE number of 3's, such as 0.333333333 or 0.3333333333333333. I never have to talk about infinitely many 3's and from now on I won't do so.

I mean no offence by the following, just constructive feedback: I think you are too focused on representation and not focused enough on semantics.

I agree that you can get as close as you want. We were never in disagreement on this. And that was my point to you when you first said 1/3 = 0.333...

If you remember, I said that 1/3

cannot equal .333... because an infinity of 3s are impossible and an infinity of 3s are needed to fulfil the semantic of 1/3

as opposed to just get close to it. But then you made that point about circles and I reconsidered my position.

To emphasise, you say you do not need to talk about infinitely many 3s, but then semantically speaking you have not fulfilled the semantic of 1/3 have you?

When the 3s are finite, you have only fulfilled close to 1/3. The only way you can say 1/3 = .333... is if you are saying that an infinity of 3s follow.