Update index.html

Author: Gmac4247

index.html

@@ -1850,7 +1850,7 @@ <h3 itemprop="name" style="margin:7px">Area of a Circle</h3>
 <section>
 <details>
   <summary><h4 itemprop="description" style="margin:12px">The area of a circle is defined by comparing it to a square since that is the base of area calculation.</h4></summary>
-<p itemprop="disambiguatingDescription" style="margin:12px"><strong>The widely used formula " A = pi × r² " is not a direct result of calculus. It’s multiplying the approximate circumference formula C = 2pi × r by half the radius, treating the area as the sum of infinitesimal rings. While that method is algebraically valid, it relies on the approximate circumference and bypasses the geometric logic that defines area: the comparison to a square.</strong></p>
+<p itemprop="description" style="margin:12px"><strong>The widely used formula " A = pi × r² " is not a direct result of calculus. It’s multiplying the approximate circumference formula C = 2pi × r by half the radius, treating the area as the sum of infinitesimal rings. While that method is algebraically valid, it relies on the approximate circumference and bypasses the geometric logic that defines area: the comparison to a square.</strong></p>
 </details>
 </section>
 <p itemprop="description" style="margin:12px">The circle can be cut into four quadrants, each placed with their origin on the vertices of a square.
@@ -2451,7 +2451,7 @@ <h3 itemprop="name" style="margin:7px">Circumference of a Circle</h3>
 <br><br>
 Historical records suggest that ancient Babylonians initially calculated it as 3, later they used 3.125; Egyptians estimated it as ( 16 / 9 )² ~ 3.16.</p>
 <br><br>
-<section itemprop="disambiguatingDescription" id="Archimedes">
+<section itemprop="description" id="Archimedes">
 <h4>Archimedes and the Illusion of Limits</h4>
 <br><br>
 <p>The Greek Archimedes’ method for estimating the pi is often celebrated as a foundational triumph of geometric reasoning.</p>
@@ -2529,7 +2529,7 @@ <h4>Archimedes and the Illusion of Limits</h4>
 </section>
 </section>
 <br><br>
-<section itemprop="disambiguatingDescription" id="symbol">
+<section itemprop="description" id="symbol">
 <h4>The Symbol Pi: A Linguistic Shortcut</h4>
 <br><br>
 <p>The symbol pi was introduced because the estimate ratio—approximately 3.14159…—is an infinite fraction. Since we can’t write all its digits, we needed a symbol. But this symbol has taken on a life of its own.
@@ -2541,7 +2541,7 @@ <h4>The Symbol Pi: A Linguistic Shortcut</h4>
 It was not until the 18th century that the symbol pi, popularized by the mathematicians of the time, gained widespread acceptance.</p>
 </section>
 <br><br>
-<section itemprop="disambiguatingDescription" id="calculus">
+<section itemprop="description" id="calculus">
 <h4>∫ Calculus: Summary, Not Source</h4>
 <br><br>
 <p>Several complex formulas were introduced by different mathematicians, aimed at more accurately estimating this ratio, based on theoretical polygons with an infinite number of sides. 
@@ -2638,7 +2638,7 @@ <h4 >The Cognitive Risk of flawed geometric Axioms.</h4>
 The final conclusion is that using the consistent, exact constant 3.2 offers a path to a more coherent and structurally sound foundation for geometric thought, thereby avoiding the introduction of a fundamental logical flaw into developing minds.</p>
 </section>	
 <br><br>
-<section itemprop="disambiguatingDescription" id="solution">
+<section itemprop="usageInfo" id="solution">
 <h4>The true Ratio: 3.2</h4>
 <br><br>
 <p>Historical records suggest that a legislative process took place in 1897, Indiana, USA, known as House Bill 246 ( sometimes listed as 264 ), or Indiana Pi Act, aiming to replace the numeric value 3.14 by 3.2.
@@ -3260,7 +3260,7 @@ <h3 itemprop="name" style="margin:7px">Volume of a Sphere</h3>
 <details>
   <summary><h4 itemprop="description">The volume of a sphere is defined by comparing it to a cube, since that is the base of volume calculation.</h4></summary>
 <br>
-<p itemprop="disambiguatingDescription">The " V = 4 / 3 × pi × radius³ " formula is widely used for the volume of a sphere. 
+<p itemprop="description">The " V = 4 / 3 × pi × radius³ " formula is widely used for the volume of a sphere. 
 <br><br>
 <strong>It was approximated by comparing a hemisphere to the difference between the approximate volume a cone and a circumscribed cylinder.
 <br><br>
@@ -3348,7 +3348,7 @@ <h3 itemprop="name" style="margin:7px">Surface Area of a Sphere</h3>
 <p style="margin:6px">The image is an illustration.</p>
 </div>
 <br>
-<p itemprop="disambiguatingDescription" style="margin:6px">The conventional formula for the surface area of a sphere was allegedly developed from the conventional volume formula.</p>
+<p itemprop="description" style="margin:6px">The conventional formula for the surface area of a sphere was allegedly developed from the conventional volume formula.</p>
 <br>
 <p itemprop="description" style="margin:6px"><strong>
 Unlock the true formula to calculate the surface area of a sphere.</strong></p>
@@ -3481,7 +3481,7 @@ <h3 itemprop="name" style="margin:7px">Volume of a Cone</h3>
   <summary>
 	<h4 itemprop="description">The volume of a cone can be calculated by algebraically comparing the volume of a vertical quadrant of a cone with equal radius and height to an octant sphere with equal radius, through a quadrant cylinder.</h4></summary>
 <br>
-<p itemprop="disambiguatingDescription">The volume of a cone is conventionally approximated as base × height / 3. While that is a reasonable approximation, the exact ratio is 1 / √8.
+<p itemprop="description">The volume of a cone is conventionally approximated as base × height / 3. While that is a reasonable approximation, the exact ratio is 1 / √8.
 <br><br>
 The 1 / 3 coefficient was likely estimated based on the observation that the mid-height cross-sectional area of a cone is exactly a quarter of a circumscribed cylinder's with the same base and height.
 <br>
@@ -3863,7 +3863,7 @@ <h3 itemprop="name" style="margin:7px">Volume of a horizontal Frustum Cone</h3>
   <summary>
 	<h4 itemprop="description">Subtracting the missing tip from a theoretical full cone gives the volume of a frustum cone.</h4></summary>
 <br>
-<p itemprop="disambiguatingDescription">The widely used raw transcript of the square frustum pyramid volume formula is inaccurate for a frustum cone.</p>
+<p itemprop="description">The widely used raw transcript of the square frustum pyramid volume formula is inaccurate for a frustum cone.</p>
 </details>
 </section>
 <p itemprop="description" style="margin:12px">The height of the theoretical full cone can be calculated by the frustum height and the ratio between the top and bottom diameters.</p>
@@ -4045,15 +4045,15 @@ <h3 itemprop="name" style="margin:7px">Volume of a Pyramid</h3>
 <details>
   <summary>
 	<h4 itemprop="description" style="margin:12px">The volume of a pyramid can be calculated with the same coefficient as the volume of a cone.</h4></summary>
-<p itemprop="disambiguatingDescription" style="margin:12px">The volume of a pyramid is conventionally approximated as base × height / 3. While that is a reasonable approximation, the exact ratio is 1 / √8.
+<p itemprop="description" style="margin:12px">The volume of a pyramid is conventionally approximated as base × height / 3. While that is a reasonable approximation, the exact ratio is 1 / √8.
 <br><br>
 A common method aiming to prove the pyramid volume formula ( V = base × height / 3 ) involves dissecting a cube into three pyramids. Here’s how it’s typically presented:</p>
 <br>
 <figure class="imgbox" itemprop="image" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject">
     <img class="center-fit" src="cubeDissection.jpeg" alt="Cube dissection">
 </figure>
 <br>
-<p itemprop="disambiguatingDescription" style="margin:12px">
+<p itemprop="description" style="margin:12px">
 Take a cube with an edge length of ( e ).
 <br><br>
 Volume of the cube: V = the cubic value of e.