I was trying to make a point that at some point the remainder will repeat and throw pi into a repeating pattern and the decimal positions will start repeating like it does in 2/7.
But if you divide 1.0 dozen into 3 parts then each part is only .333… dozen, and .333… x 3 = .999…dozen, which is not a whole dozen. 
The remainder of what? What two numbers are you dividing?
I am dividing the circumference by the diameter.
Those are words. What 2 numbers are you dividing?
I would have to measure the circumference and diameter in some number of units and do the division.
…and at what point is that, exactly… every ‘how many’ decimal places.
It depends on the limitations of my precision of measurements.
At some point you have to have a finite number for the circumference and a finite number for the diameter.
Right, I’ve got a thought experiment.
Imagine you did that. Imagine you set out to physically measure pi like this. What I think would happen if you did that is, of course you would try to construct a relatively accurate circle and you would do your best to measure it accurately. You’d get your circumference and diameter, and you’d do the division, and you’d get a number that looks just like pi up to, say, 7 decimals and then it starts differing a bit, and eventually either the decimal ends or it just repeats. So that’s step 1.
But of course you haven’t constructed a perfect circle and you haven’t measured it perfectly, so you get challenged to try the experiment again, but this time using a much bigger circle so your measuring tools, while just as inaccurate as they were for step 1, are relatively more accurate. So you construct a circle twice the size, and you measure it, and you get your diameter and circumference, and you do the division. And again, just like step 1, you get your number, and the decimal either ends or repeats. But this time, instead of it matching the standard notion of pi to 7 digits, it now matches the standard notion of pi to 20 digits. So that’s step 2.
In step 3, you construct a circle that’s twice as big again. And you do your measurements and your calculations and the new number you come up with matches the standard notion of pi to 30 digits.
So you double it again…
What I’m getting at is, you could continue constructing bigger and bigger circles, and getting more and more decimals that match the standard notion of pi, and you would die never knowing where pi truly ends, because you could have doubled your circle one more time to get more digits.
Pi is the theoretical result of continuing that experiment indefinitely, infinitely.
…but a dozen is 12 and 12 can be ‘labelled’ a dozen, in certain parts of the world, as taught in Maths Class… remember that? What about a baker’s dozen… what kind of magic number, is that. lol
Just as ‘10’ equates to ten 1s, a ‘dozen’ equates to twelve 1s… a ‘score’ to twenty 1s, a ‘baker’s dozen’ to thirteen 1s. That is part of the Basic Maths curriculum… Mathematics 101.
The “remainder” concern to the side for a moment – that red part is something I thinbk you have been wrong about for a long time - leading to a lot of argument.
Just like 1 is NOT really the same as 0.999…
— 1/3 is NOT the same as 0.333…
When you divide your dozen equally - you get 3 - 1/3 portions.
You do NOT actually get 3 - 0.333… portions = because 1/3 is NOT equal to 0.333…
Pi is a ratio of the finite circumference to the finite diameter.
If I have a small circle with a finite diameter and finite circumference then pi is obtained by dividing the circumference by the diameter.
If I then measure a bigger circle and get a different value for pi then pi is DIFFERENT for that circle.
Again, it is limited to the measuring accuracy, and the circumference and diameter have to be a finite value obtained by my measuring instruments.
Without numbers pi is just the ratio of the words circumference to diameter. There is no “3.14159…” because there are no numbers that were divided. If the circumference has no numbers, and the diameter has no numbers, then pi has no numbers!
There are two different divisions:
12 divided by 3 = 4
1 divided by 3 = .333…
Do you agree that these are two different divisions?
No!
Do you agree that 3 Dozen divided by 3 = 1 Dozen, and 1 x 3 = 3???
Do you agree that 2 Dozen divided by 4 = .5 Dozen and .5 x 4 = 2???
Do you agree that 1 dozen divided by 10 = .10 Dozen and .10 x 10 = 1.0???
Then WHY are you being so stubborn about 1 dozen divided by 3 equaling 3 1/3??? 3 what, 3 dozen???
Using a protractor or ruler and a compass should suffice, but the larger the measurements the more the margin of error will be greater… as we know.
Computer precision technology and tools should minimise that to perfection… or dies it? 
3 of them idiot -
three portions - each portion being 1/3 of the whole.
And that is not the same as three portions - each portion being 0.333…
Oh, so your point the whole time was about the physical limitations of measuring pi?
Sure, in physical reality every instance of a circle will always have irregularities and will only be able to be physically measured to numbers which will inevitably produce a finite decimal representation like you’re talking about. That is indeed a limit of our messy physical reality.
The mathematical concept of pi is conceptually separate from that physical messiness.
No matter how big the circle is, if my ruler only measures to within 1/4" then my measurements will never be more accurate than 1/4", regardless of the size of circle I measure.
Sure, 1/4" is a very low percentage of 27 miles, but if I measure 27 miles it will never be more accurate than within 1/4".
“The WHOLE” is 1.0 (100%), not 12.
No, my point was about the division of the numbers of the circumference and diameter, and how a repeating remainder will cause the decimal to repeat, just like 2/7 repeats due to the remainder repeating, which can never be divided equally, which means the division can never be completed.