Yes, your argument is crap. Just because two shapes are both equilateral doesn't mean they are at all equivalent in any way.Märk wrote:I'm only using circles and squares though, both equilateral shapes. To put it another way:
(c=circumference, r=radius, a=area, p=perimeter)
Think of a circle as a polygon with an infinite number of sides. Consider a 3x4 right triangle. Its perimeter is 3+4+5=12. Its area is 6. Compare this with a 2x3 square. Its perimeter is 4+6=10. Its area is 6.
Different objects' circumference:area ratios scale differently. Also it's a polynomial relationship, not linear. That can mess up your intuitive sense of things.How can the area of a circle as compared to the area of a square, using exactly the same circumference/perimeter not always be consistent? I'm not saying they should be the same as each other, but the relationship should always be consistent, but I've just demonstrated that it is not.

As far as the exact numbers you're getting, I have a feeling you're making an egregious math error since they shouldn't be anywhere even remotely similar. Are you remembering to take the appropriate square roots etc.?