I have detailed my experiences over the last week since posting some pretty remarkable results. The trolling still somewhat continues but the tone has dramatically changed. The last couple of days have been more about “getting to the mathematical truth”. Which I truly appreciate.
I really do understand how improbable this all seems. How could we be wrong about Pi? There will be skeptics and that is okay. I equally want to get to the “mathematical truth”.
Yesterday we reviewed my findings in much greater detail than any day prior. There were even discussions about collaboration, which I welcomed. Today was day 5 and the most interesting and productive day by far with 3 of us working to figure out what is going on.
The day started with a goal of trying to simplify the equation and turn it into a single algebraic function that takes only my initial 4 inputs. 1,1,2,3. They wanted to help and asked to be cited which I agreed to.
They may not like me or my ideas but I really appreciate them taking the time to work through this and try to either prove or debunk it all. This is all I could ask.
As I have stated more than once. I am a designer and programmer by trade so this part was challenging for me but I really enjoyed it and learned a lot through this process.
Bit by bit we took everything apart and put it back together as we simplified it. I did not even recognize the final function. I originally built SyPi in parts. After more than 2 years of working with and testing this equation I know these parts extremely well. They are very much like gears in a clock and I understand them all.
This looks completely different and all the context of each part gets lost, but I understand the objective. Putting SyPi through rigorous tests simplifying and making comparisons is critical. Formulating the equation this way makes it easier for mathematicians to understand.
Unfortunately the initial conversion failed and the new formula did not match the model I had built. It is at this point the tone started to change again. I was already not completely convinced about them trying to help and slowly but surely the little snark remarks started to return, as I was trying to troubleshoot and find out what was not working.
“This does not look good.”, “Why did you chose 1,1,2,9 and not 0,1,1,2 or any other numbers?”, “The model must be wrong”
Not fully able to understand this foreign equation. I quickly rebuilt the entire equation as I know it only this time as single function which would takes the 4 inputs and without declaring any other variables.
SyPi 3.0 Debug Try it for yourself — https://www.geogebra.org/m/tyj8ggdb
Just like that SyPi was back and working. This did not shift the tone back and instead it was suggested multiple times that the error was on my side. The model must be wrong. Upon further confirming with them that it was not my model or debug code it was actually suggested that it was GeoGebra that could not understand the new formulation. I insisted that something got lost in the algebraic translation. They insisted the algebra was correct and that the error had to be coming from somewhere else.
SyPi 3.0 Try it for yourself — https://www.geogebra.org/m/tyj8ggdb
I asked if pi being a transcendental and irrational number could be why it was not simplifying. To which they responded “the SyPi function can be reduced to a fraction this does not contradict pi being irrational as SyPi is not equal to pi”
That sounds an awful lot like bias to me. They both abruptly signed off at this point without any further discussion at all, after working on this for most of the day.
Personally I hate leaving lose ends so I decided to give it another try on my own leaning on WolframAlpha . I was able to successfully derive the following SyPi 4.1 Function which DOES work.
Try it here 4.1 here — https://www.geogebra.org/calculator/cyfkktce
I am still trying to pin down ways I could simplify it more. It does work but there is a very tiny difference in the value of pi when compared to the original 3.0 model and Debug code. This simplified 4.1 formula is a little off and I am still trying to figure out why. I will keep everyone posted.
I still very much appreciate both their time and help. I really did have a lot of fun today working with both of them. I am not sure based on how this has all gone down if they are genuinely trying to help me or not. The little comments here there seem to suggest their motive is more about debunking me than proving anything. Time will tell. Regardless of their intent they have helped in a big way. They will be cited and given full credit for their contributions.