Thread: Good-Bye to Pi?

Apparently, mathematicians want to say "good-bye to pi." - Article It seems the value that appears most often throughout mathematics, such as in Planck units, is 2*pi, not pi.

Mathematicians even have a name for it they'd like to use instead of 2*pi: Tau.

Some advocate changing the value of pi to 6.28..., but I think that would lead to massive confusion. I wouldn't mind tau simply replacing 2*pi, as in C=tau*d, though it would take some getting used to.

Originally Posted by mugaliens

\tau Apparently, mathematicians want to say "good-bye to pi." - Article It seems the value that appears most often throughout mathematics, such as in Planck units, is 2*pi, not pi.

Mathematicians even have a name for it they'd like to use instead of 2*pi: Tau.

Some advocate changing the value of pi to 6.28..., but I think that would lead to massive confusion. I wouldn't mind tau simply replacing 2*pi, as in C=tau*d, though it would take some getting used to.

It is logical, as i am sure many physicists and mathematicians know. It probably will not catch on though. And there are a limited number of Greek letters. ;-)

I have never needed tau (well, I have used this letter, but probably never for double the value of pi). Whenever I need it, I use 2*pi as a perfectly adequate substitute. Although it will nto surprise me at all if I come back to this thread later and find that tau is exactly double pi in the morning but not in the afternoon or something like that.

This is going to get utterly confusing, as all over relativity tau is used for proper time (where t is coordinate time).

Originally Posted by mugaliens

\tau Apparently, mathematicians want to say "good-bye to pi." - Article It seems the value that appears most often throughout mathematics, such as in Planck units, is 2*pi, not pi.

Mathematicians even have a name for it they'd like to use instead of 2*pi: Tau.

I hadn't heard of this, do you have a link to some of discussion? Sounds like an onion article!

Some advocate changing the value of pi to 6.28..., but I think that would lead to massive confusion. I wouldn't mind tau simply replacing 2*pi, as in C=tau*d though it would take some getting used to.

Surely, that's the formula for circumference C, using diameter d? But that's just C=pi*d.

The formula for the area of a circle would be , which is even worse, I'd think.

With Planck units, the physicists just ignore it anyway!

I think it is not meaningful, if we measure in kilometres or miles, there is no difference if we are consistent.

My bad! I didn't notice the link, till now, now that we have links in color. The article says

A better teaching tool

Aside from preventing errors, as Palais put it in his article, "The opportunity to impress students with a beautiful and natural simplification has turned into an absurd exercise in memorization and dogma."

That's a little harsh!

You have to wonder about the aptitude of anyone who struggles with that conversion. They might be better off in sales and marketing, or a thousand other things.

Originally Posted by grapes

You have to wonder about the aptitude of anyone who struggles with that conversion. They might be better off in sales and marketing, or a thousand other things.

Most sales and marketing people I know are quite capable of telling, if one unit costs X, how much two units cost!

I apologize if my remark made it sound like I thought sales and marketing was inferior, or incapable. Some of my best friends are in sales and marketing. It's just that they don't have to deal with angle conversions between degrees and radians that often. Not everyone has the skill/aptitude/body for a particular sport/vocation/avocation.

Originally Posted by grapes

I apologize if my remark made it sound like I thought sales and marketing was inferior, or incapable. Some of my best friends are in sales and marketing. It's just that they don't have to deal with angle conversions between degrees and radians that often. Not everyone has the skill/aptitude/body for a particular sport/vocation/avocation.

I'm not in sales or marketing, if that's what you're wondering

I do recall one incident, though, in which a 10% advance deposit was required for a transaction. An individual whom I won't name pulled out a calculator to determine the amount of the deposit . . .