So in other words, let's ignore everything other people have done, create our own definitions, derive dubious results, call them the same name, and then declare the other, longer standing results as wrong.

It appears that his "definition" of pi depends on each circle drawn. In other words, he has no single definition, and "the" value depends on the measurement taken in each case. So again, in other words, he doesn't actually have a single value.

So it's a diverting philosophical ramble, but for me it's been pretty close to a complete waste of time. I'd be interested to know if anyone here on HN thinks otherwise, and in particular, why anyone would think it's worth upvoting.