"Hogwash"
I wouldn't dare to say that about Dr Fuller...
"Mathematics is a way of describing nature, not the other way around."
He doesn't say otherwise, he says that our description of nature (that we are using pi) is flawed.
I wouldn't dare to say that about Dr Fuller...
"Mathematics is a way of describing nature, not the other way around."
He doesn't say otherwise, he says that our description of nature (that we are using pi) is flawed.
Every description we'll ever have will probably be flawed to some degree.
I concur that it's hogwash
Also See What are numbers, and what is their meaning?: Dedekind http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~snburris/htdocs/scav/dedek/ded...
He also use Pi in computers, e.g to draw circles, and computers (and displays) are even more discrete that nature.
Has he come up with something better to use in Pi's place?
That we don't use "all" of Pi to draw a circle doesn't matter, the "Pi" kind of circle is like the perfect archetype. We don't make the "perfect bridge" or the "perfect car" either, that doesn't mean the concept of bridges and cars is useless.
Look we either talk about the exact pi, or not pi at all. In my computer there's no pi.
As for the alternative, at least he tried something:
"Fuller also claimed that the natural analytic geometry of the universe was based on arrays of tetrahedra. He developed this in several ways, from the close-packing of spheres and the number of compressive or tensile members required to stabilize an object in space. One confirming result was that the strongest possible homogeneous truss is cyclically tetrahedral."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fuller#Philosophy_a...
You'd be surprised to hear about the wonderful concept of approximation.
As for the "alternative", sounds like bogus science to me...