🌟 When “Squaring the Circle” Becomes a Finite, Exact, and Browser-Verifiable Geometric Reality
For centuries, squaring the circle has been treated as a symbol of impossibility.
An abstract limit.
An asymptotic pursuit.
A thought experiment rather than a testable geometry.
Most approaches drift toward:
infinite limits
heuristic packing
visual approximation
probabilistic optimisation
This work asks a simpler — and more precise — question:
What if squaring the circle is treated as a finite geometric problem, not an idealised one?
🧠 Geometry Before Approximation
Classical packing studies often relax constraints early:
corners are approximated
boundaries are softened
acceptance becomes statistical
The Finite Structural Area Experiment (FSAE) takes the opposite path.
It does not ask how densely squares can fill a circle in theory.
It asks:
How many squares can be placed such that every square is exactly inside the circle — with no tolerance, no approximation, and no visual inference?
📐 What FSAE Actually Does (Without Guesswork)
FSAE is built using principles from Shunyaya Structural Universal Mathematics (SSUM), but its rule is deliberately simple and classical:
For every square, all four corners must satisfy:
x_corner^2 + y_corner^2 <= R^2
There are:
no softened boundaries
no probabilistic acceptance
no simulation loops
Every square is either certified or rejected.
🔢 Finite Enumeration, Not Infinite Limits
This study works with:
a fixed circle radius
Ra fixed square side length
sexplicit lattice configurations
Both axis-aligned and rotated square lattices are evaluated under identical rules.
Rotation is treated as a bounded geometric parameter, not a free optimisation trick.
Translation fairness is enforced explicitly.
The result is not a curve, a trend, or an estimate —
but a finite, integer count.
🧪 The Method (High Level, Deterministic)
FSAE proceeds by:
enumerating square lattice centers
rotating and translating them deterministically
analytically checking all four corners of every square
certifying results strictly as PASS / FAIL
No learning.
No solvers.
No Monte Carlo sampling.
The same inputs always produce the same outcome.
🌟 What the Geometry Reveals
For the reference case:
R = 10s = 1
The results are unambiguous:
Axis-aligned lattice:
277 → 279Rotated lattice:
277 → 279
Improvements occur only at specific geometric alignments.
Small parameter changes often do nothing.
This reveals a key insight:
Geometric improvement is discrete, not smooth.
✨ The Beauty of Structural Plateaus
What makes this result important is not the number itself —
but how the number changes.
There is no gradual optimisation.
No continuous drift.
Instead:
geometry advances in plateaus
alignment unlocks capacity suddenly
translation matters as much as rotation
This behaviour is invisible in approximate or asymptotic methods —
but obvious under exact certification.
🔍 The Key Insight
“Squaring the circle” does not need to be infinite to be meaningful.
When treated as a finite structural problem:
geometry becomes testable
results become verifiable
disagreement becomes explicit
In short:
Exact geometry reveals structure that approximation hides.
🌍 Why This Matters Beyond a Puzzle
FSAE is not about squares and circles alone.
It introduces a certification-first way of thinking about geometry, where spatial claims are verified before optimisation, simulation, or material assumptions enter the picture.
The same certification discipline applies to:
finite packing problems
layout constraints
bounded spatial design
geometry-first diagnostics
What makes this significant is not higher counts or tighter fits, but certainty.
Every configuration is:
-
exactly certified under a strict geometric rule
-
deterministically reproducible across machines and environments
-
visually and analytically aligned, using the same constraints
Axis-aligned and rotated layouts are evaluated under identical rules, enabling fair comparison without heuristic bias or tolerance-based ambiguity.
This makes FSAE reusable far beyond this problem:
the same approach can be applied to other shapes, containers, and finite spatial systems where correctness matters more than approximation.
Before optimisation.
Before simulation.
Before material models.
Geometry itself can be certified.
🧭 Observability, Not Optimisation
FSAE does not:
claim optimality
predict physical performance
replace engineering judgement
It provides geometric observability only.
All decisions live above the result —
while the geometry remains exact and untouched.
🔗 Where the Work Lives
🔬 Executable Verification — SSUM Observatory (Case 08)
https://ompshunyaya.github.io/ssum-observatory/08_finite_structural_area_experiment/
https://github.com/OMPSHUNYAYA/ssum-observatory
📘 Finite Structural Area Experiment (FSAE)
https://github.com/OMPSHUNYAYA/SSUM-Finite-Structural-Area-Experiment
This blog is the narrative entry point.
The Observatory remains the single source of truth for execution.
📘 License & Attribution (SSUM)
Open Standard — provided as-is.
You may read, study, reference, and build upon the concepts.
Optional attribution (not mandatory):
“Implements concepts from Shunyaya Structural Universal Mathematics (SSUM).”
⚠️ Disclaimer
Research and observation only.
Not intended for optimisation claims, safety decisions, or engineering execution.
Comments
Post a Comment