User talk:Fipodigital
Welcome!
[edit]Hi Fipodigital! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Your Teahouse enquiry
[edit]Hello, Stefano. I have read your enquiry at the "Teahouse", and I will offer you some information and advice relating to it.
You asked "how [you] could improve [the draft you have created] to meet the notability and neutrality requirements". I'm afraid the answer is that the subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and no amount of editing or modifying a piece of writing about a subject can ever change the notability of that subject itself. Wikipedia has, in my opinion, too many notability guidelines, and they are longer and more complex than they need to be, which can make things confusing for new editors, but the essential point is given in the general notability guideline, which says that a subject is notable if it has received substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable published sources, which your idea hasn't. Unless or until it does so, no article about it will be suitable for Wikipedia, no matter how it may be written. A document written by the creator of a topic is not an independent source; a document self-published by posting it to a site where anyone can post is not a reliable source.
What I have said above describes the situation regarding your attempt to create a Wikipedia article about your idea, but I thought it might also be of interest to you to offer you an assessment of the idea itself. I intended to look at your paper so that I could offer comments on it, but when I tried to read it, it made repeated attempts to load up spam, so I deleted it unread. However, on the basis of what you have said about it on Wikipedia I will make a few comments. You appear to think that π is somehow involved in definitions related to circles, and that by using different definitions you can eliminate π. However, π is not part of any definition; it is a ratio which arises from properties of a circle, which follow from any definition. You say that your method "is shown to converge to the same numerical area as the traditional formula". If it produces the same numerical results, then the ratios among those numerical results are the same, including ratios which turn out to be π. Since the quantities are the same (in your words "the same numerical area as the traditional formula") their ratio is the same, no matter how you define or calculate them. JBW (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- The convergence toward π is not what interests me. I know the results may match numerically—but that’s not the point. I want to go beyond π, not deny it. π emerges from the properties of the circle; it is a consequence, not a starting point.
- In my system, every point on the circle and the sphere is generated through an internal triangulated structure. But more importantly, I can also calculate the surface area with increasing precision, without relying on π. I use discrete methods that are perfectly suited for modern computational power.
- My reasoning begins from a purely geometric intuition. I wanted to understand how area emerges—not from imposed formulas, but from construction itself. I first considered projecting from the center to the circumference, but it failed: the center is dimensionless, while the circumference is a measurable line. Then I tried radial projection of the radius, but again it didn’t work: it caused central overcrowding and outer thinning, hard to explain in a brief reply.
- That’s when I turned to the triangle. Even there, area is calculated using an artificial trick: doubling the triangle to form a parallelogram. The same trick lies hidden in the circle. But I reversed the logic: instead of doubling, I halved the sphere. And by doing so, I solved the problem in a way that is geometrically sustainable.
- I don’t want to assume π—I want to let it emerge, if it must, from the geometry itself. But if I can determine everything with absolute precision without invoking π, then perhaps it is not essential after all.
- That is the heart of the Generative Radial Geometry (GRG). Fipodigital (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- The dissemination has just begun, but if you understand the precision — and you should, just by observing its geometry — it’s important that this approach be taken into consideration. The discrete circle is free from error.
- 10.6084/m9.figshare.29824118
- https://zenodo.org/records/16732109?token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzUxMiJ9.eyJpZCI6IjkzMGQ0MmUxLWNiYjMtNDJjZi1iNzY4LWEyNzMyZGExYTJlZiIsImRhdGEiOnt9LCJyYW5kb20iOiJjYTFmYjM1MTQ1YjUzODc2MWQyMDMxMzIwNzNmNmJhMyJ9.5FYatwxAAMxqt9Z_zOuBKBSTAmATXTomo6oAo0Y1Fz2sOWe4K7CYVSLhP1yT6YfCnainPRHUT4e3oY_Z-YTUwQ Fipodigital (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)