Update about.html

Text fix.

Author: Gmac4247

about.html

@@ -276,15 +276,13 @@ <h1 style="font-size:160%;margin:7px;">About the Core Geometric System ™</h1>
 <br>
 <br>
 I was trying to match the overlapping area with the uncovered by eye. 
-<br>
-When it looked quite close I did all kinds of complicated calculations.
-<br>
+When it looked quite close I did all kinds of complicated calculations. 
 I didn't have a routine in that and I wanted to calculate all aspects of it. 
 <br>
-I calculated quite intensively and my calculations were quite extensive and a backcheck resulted in an error so I got pretty tired and just layed the figure face down.
+I calculated quite intensively and my calculations were quite extensive. When a backcheck resulted in an error I felt quite tired of it and just layed the figure face down.
 <br>
 <br>
-About a month later I had a look at it and I realized at the first glance that the area of the circle equals the area of the square when the arcs of the qudrant circles intersect at the quarters of the centerlines.
+About a month later I had a look at it and I realized at the first glimpse that the area of the circle equals the area of the square when the arcs of the qudrant circles intersect at the quarters of the centerlines.
 <br>
 <br>
 Maybe that doesn't sound very scientific at first, but somehow I instantly realized that it is the only way.
@@ -316,7 +314,9 @@ <h1 style="font-size:160%;margin:7px;">About the Core Geometric System ™</h1>
 Meanwhile I got curious about the properties of other shapes, and I figured that the volume of a sphere equals the cubed value of the square root of its cross-sectional area, just like a cube.
 <br>
 <br>
-With the limited resources that I had, I conducted some experiments. I could not provide the accuracy that the subject deserves, but the results aligned better with my V = ( √( 3.2 )r)³ formula than the conventional "4 / 3 × π × r³". It's quite hard to physically measure the volume of a ball accurately, but there's a significant difference between the results of the two formulas that was easy to see.
+With the limited resources that I had, I conducted some experiments. I could not provide the accuracy that the subject deserves, but the results aligned with my V=(√(3.2)r)³ formula better than the conventional "4 / 3 × π × r³". 
+<br>
+It's quite hard to physically measure the volume of a ball accurately, but there's a significant difference between the results of these two formulas, that was easy to see.
 <br>
 <br>
 I have derived the volume of a cone by comparing a vertical quadrant of a cone to an octant of a sphere.
@@ -327,27 +327,19 @@ <h1 style="font-size:160%;margin:7px;">About the Core Geometric System ™</h1>
 </section>
 <br>
 <br>
-<section><p style="margin:12px;">In early 2020 there were news about that online education will be introduced because of the pandemic.
-<br>
-I thought my discoveries can be useful for others, too, so I went to the loal public library to share them online as a webpage.
-<br>
+<section><p style="margin:12px;">In early 2020 there were news about that online education will be introduced because of the pandemic. I thought it was time to share my discoveries online, so I went to the loal public library to publish them on a webpage. 
 <br>
-That was another challenge because I didn't have a routine in web development either.
-<br>
-<br>
-Under some sorts of different pressures I made all kinds of mistakes. My volume formula for a cone and a pyramid was undeveloped and I wasn't totally comfortable with my content overall but I had to start somewhere.
-<br>
-My attention was divided by lots of details in both geometry and IT.
+My volume formula for a cone and a pyramid was undeveloped and I didn't have much web development skills but I had to start somewhere. My attention was divided by lots of details in both geometry and IT.
 <br>
 <br>
 I received some negative criticism regarding my formulas. Those included the lack of rigorous proof, and the alleged rigorous proofs of the conventional formulas.
 <br>
-Obviously I wasn't happy about those, but I felt like there's not much I can do about that. I derived my formulas from 1st principles, what should I prove about those?
+Obviously I wasn't happy about those, but I felt like there's not much I can do about that. I derived my formulas from first principles, what should I prove about those?
 <br>
-Also I didn't see how the so-called "proofs" of the conventional formulas prove anything. They are superficial and some of them are even exaggerated and nonsensical. Only I see that?
+Also I didn't see how the so-called "proofs" of the conventional formulas prove anything. They are superficial, exaggerated and nonsensical. Only I see that?
 <br>
-Then I realized that it is about something else. It's the old "We have a diploma, so we are right." thing.
 <br>
+Then I realized that it is about something else. It's the old "We have a diploma, so we are right." thing.
 <br>
 I'm not buying that. I got thinking way before I started all this, who issued the first diploma in history?
 <br>
@@ -364,10 +356,10 @@ <h1 style="font-size:160%;margin:7px;">About the Core Geometric System ™</h1>
 <br>
 They call that Euclidean geometry. I primarily regard my framework as a fix of the conventional one. 
 <br>
-It's quite similar to the Euclidean, but the key difference is that I don't define the point is as zero-dimensional and a line can have a thickness. These two make a big difference, especially when in case of 3 dimensional solids. 
+It's quite similar to the Euclidean, but apparently the key differences are that I don't define the point is as zero-dimensional and a line can have a thickness. These two make a big difference, especially when in case of 3 dimensional solids. 
 <br>
 <br>
-Deriving the properties of different shapes is in the scope, which is not really about if it is Euclidean or not. But since that is associated with the zero-dimensional point and Archimedes' flawed formulas, I figured that it's the best to start with a clear sheet.
+Exactly determining the properties of different shapes is in the scope, which is not really about if it is Euclidean or not. But since that is associated with the zero-dimensional point and Archimedes' flawed formulas, I figured that it's the best to start with a clear sheet.
 </p>
 <br>
 <br>
@@ -389,7 +381,7 @@ <h1 style="font-size:160%;margin:7px;">About the Core Geometric System ™</h1>
 </section>
 <br>
 <br>
-<section><p style="margin:12px;">In 2024 I fixed the numeric value for my cone and pyramid volume formula. I'm sorry about having presented a wrong number for such a long time, but at least my logic was closer to reality. 
+<section><p style="margin:12px;">In 2024 I fixed the numeric value for my cone and pyramid volume formula. I'm sorry about that I had presented a wrong number for such a long time, but at least my logic was closer to reality. 
 <br>
 <br>
 Later that year I got access to AI language models.