
Defend the world from the wrath of the polygons!
After boldly proclaiming that I am Boba Fett it seems appropriate to introduce the real me, or at least how I see myself, and talk a bit about what this blog is. Going on a diatribe about myself sounds narcissistic and silly, especially since there are only about ten visitors per week (although it was much higher during the competition). So rather, I'll try and layout a few of my qualities that I hope will at least seed the topics of this blog.
I took this image of some Iron Oxide nanocrystals i made a few weeks ago. They formed a ring as the solvent evaporated off the thin carbon film on which they rest for transmission electron microscopy(TEM). Can you see the self similarity?



As I've already mentioned, the equation for the area of a circle has no factor of two and the volume of a sphere has a factor of four thirds, so no help there. The circumference of a circle is equal to two pi R, but if you write it in terms of the diameter of a circle the factor of two goes away. Besides, why is Mr. Palais so interested in two dimensional geometry, after all we live in a three dimensional world. The surface area of a sphere is four pi R squared, so maybe he should argue that pi should become four pi. I will give him credit for ponying up to the fact that all the angles in a triangle add up to pi radians, strong evidence against his argument. Then we have Euler's identity, which Richard Feynman called the "most remarkable formula in mathematics," no factor of two there. In fact, if you go through all the major formulas that define pi very few actually have the factor of two. In wikipedia's entry on pi I counted only five equations out of 55 listed from mathematics and science where re-defining pi would eliminate a factor. In fact, from a cursory glance, a factor of one half seems much more common. Here are a couple that I ran into:



His argument about the factor of two being everywhere is bogus, laughable really. Mr. Palais really shines when he tries to say that the equation for the area of a circle should look like the equation for kinetic energy. Yes, isn't it obvious, since one half mass times velocity squared is kinetic energy, one half pi (his new version) R squared should be the area of a circle! Genius! I jest, but this is no laughing matter. Pi beautifully appears in many, many equations. Sometimes it appears with other factors, but those factors are not two much more often than they are. Mr. Palais's claim is not only disrespectful the the beauty of pi but outright wrong.
The results are out and I placed 10th! They have me down for a 27.254% profit over the eight weeks that the Interactive Brokers College Olympiad ran, slightly above where I thought I ended up. I'm am very pleased with this result considering this is the first of hopefully many more years of competing. I'm eligible so long as I'm in school and I've only finished a year towards a PhD in Materials Science at the University of Illinois (4-6 yrs). With all the experience I picked up in the 2007 competition, next year things could get interesting. 10th is good, but it leaves alot of room for improvement! Thanks for your support and feel free to drop me an email at pythagoruz@yahoo.com if you have questions about the software. You can find my weekly market thoughts at StockGeometry.

3.14159 26535 89793 23846 26433 83279 50288 41971 69399 37510...............