Time to put up or shut up, Tim. The circumference of a tree trunk is a fractal length that can be many times greater than a perfect circle depending upon the species of tree. You could never find a tree with a constant diameter so what are you going to divide by? And since pi requires division, exactly how was that division accomplished when rain was falling on the dinosaurs? I'll bet you $1000 that you cannot find a real-world tree trunk that even satisfies pi to 10 decimal places much less an infinite number of decimal places. Your statements are unreal, absurd, and maybe pathological. You see things in nature that do not exist in nature. I doubt that those raptors in "Jurassic Park" were even smart enough to do long division much less understand irrational numbers. They're based on your argument, not mine. It was you who said a square wave graphed in a textbook is not a square wave, i.e. the name of the thing is not the thing. I have since been trying to get you to honor your own argument. Argon is the name of an element. So, just as you will not allow me to use the words "square wave" for the graphic of a square wave printed in a textbook, you cannot allow yourself to use the word "Argon" for the element. If I have to say "graph of a square wave" every time, you have to say "the element named Argon". It's your requirement, not mine. My last few postings have simply been based on your argument. If you cannot abide by your own rules, then please release me from them. I was perfectly happy calling the graph of a square wave by its "square wave" name, as are many distinguished authors of technical books, but you objected. I would have been perfectly happy calling the element named Argon by its name but, according to your above logic, that should not be allowed. So please, either honor your own requirements or allow the communications on this newsgroup to return to normal.