Round Numbers:
If square numbers are the areas of squares whose dimensions are integers (the origin of the term square, I think), then shouldn't round numbers be pi, pi*4, pi*9, and so on?
pageok
pageok
pageok 
Round Numbers:
If square numbers are the areas of squares whose dimensions are integers (the origin of the term square, I think), then shouldn't round numbers be pi, pi*4, pi*9, and so on? 
pageok 

Why is it a shipment when it goes by car, and cargo when it goes by a ship?
connected to real square number like 4 or 9?
And what happens when a nice round pi gets cubed?
Maybe it's something only Mobius or Klein would know. . .
Man recites pi from memory to 83,431 places
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8456677/
Cobblers are square.
So round numbers would be 0.25 / pi, 1/pi, 2.25 / pi, etc.
I always thought Pi R Square
BTW, What's brown, runs off a cliff, and is equivalent to the axiom of choice?
9/9 = .999999...
The key to remember is that there are infinitely many 9's following the decimal place. If you add them up, you'll get 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 + .... That's a geometric series, which adds up to 1.
Thus .9999... is equal to 1, (It is, literally, just another way of expressing the number. So there is no contradiction or inconsistency.
You got me. Also puzzling is how transcendental numbers got their name, when in fact almost all real numbers are transcendental.
Although I hear nowadays it's not politically correct to call them transcendental  they prefer the term "polynomially challenged".
You'd get 23.1407.
Thus, pi/6, 4*pi/3, 9*pi/2, and 32*pi/3 are also round.
As are (pi^2)/32, (pi^2)/2, and 81*(pi^2)/32.
You need stop with the twodimensional thinking.
ps. I've used volumes (or "volumes", if you prefer) rather than surface areas as they seem more analogous to the "square numbers" case.
pps. I'll leave the "volumes" of hyperspheres of n greater than 3 as an exercise for someone else.
But really, a round number is defined in mathematics as "A round number is a number that is the product of a considerable number of comparatively small factors" (citation: Hardy, G. H. "Round Numbers." Ch. 3 in Ramanujan: Twelve Lectures on Subjects Suggested by His Life and Work, 3rd ed. New York: Chelsea, pp. 4857, 1999. Hat tip: MathWorld)
In popular culture, a round number is one of the ones that has nice round zeroes in all places other than the most significant one. That's the one the Wikipedia goes with.
The etymological base in visual analogy, seen in the association of trailing zeroes to a "round" number, is mirrored in the actual definition of a square number, which is a number that is a square of two other numbers, for the obvious reason that then you can lay out the given units in a square formation (i.e. 9 is a square number because 3^2 = 9, ergo you can arrange your 9 widgets three by three on a table). Wikipedia backs me up.
One of my best friends is Desmond Devlin, a writer for Mad Magazine. Wikipedia has an entry for him. At one point it said that he was born during the 1800s in "what is now Rome Italy." It also linked him romantically to Abraham Lincoln's son. They've since corrected the entry to one which is more accurate (and boring). But bottom line is I don't have much faith in it.
In particular, when one is calculating the length of steel bar to be used to bent the master link for a chain sling, it is necessary to introduce a correction factor for stretch. Much imperical review shows that setting pi equal to three provides the correction across the common bar size to bend centerline diameter range.
Sorry if this is too serious for the thread.
Rational numbers are numbers that can be expressed as ratios of integers. Got nothing to do with the homonym referring to the use of reason.
We're intelligent, but not experienced.
Edward Lee: transcendental numbers transcend the nicelybehaved algebraic numbers. Really, the term comes from a transcendental extension of a field, which transcends all fields attainable by algebraic extension (adjoining formal solutions to polynomial equations).
As for "almost all", in a technical sense every "nice" property is false for almost all objects which may or may not have this property. Almost all rational numbers are not integers. Almost all algebraic numbers are irrational. Almost all real numbers are not algebraic. Almost all complex numbers are not real. Almost all C^{n} functions are not C^{n+1}. I could go on for hours.
Don't spoil the fun.