Talk:Pi: Difference between revisions
→Pi vs tau: conciseness, task description complications, Pi/Pi and Tau really wouldn't bother me.
m (→Task split: split to new section.) |
(→Pi vs tau: conciseness, task description complications, Pi/Pi and Tau really wouldn't bother me.) |
||
Line 74:
::: But there's no exact arguments on merits. Tau vs Pi is really a matter of radius vs diameter of a circle, and you can't argue which is of more merit than the other. A well defined constant should convey most symmetry or invariance of a system, where radius is arguably better because one end of r is always at the origin--but in real world diameters are almost always easier to measure: try directly tell the radius of a ball bearing with a caliper. In any event, for calculating digits of pi, the tau debate is not even relevant, where the most useful constant is probably Pi/4 any way. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 21:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
::: That http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3481 argument (and the pi manifesto it referenses) suggests that this whole thing is just about conciseness, and not about some of the other issues (like constant 1/2 in simple r^2 equations and 1/6 in simple r^3 equations). I can understand that conciseness has advantages, and I also agree that pi's familiarity/popularity can be a major advantage in a cookbook equation context. Anyways, the "pi is wrong" slogan, while catchy and motivating is itself wrong. "Pi is useful, but pi can also occasionally be misleading or confusing" would be a more accurate (though boring) phrasing. There's room in the world for both constants, and I dislike reasoning (even from its advocates) that suggest that there can be only one. And "tau is 2*pi" is simple, but too trivial? We have "Goodbye, world" here. And, 99 bottles of beer -- how can "tau is 2*pi" be too trivial? (Though, ok, I can understand not wanting to like to a "pi is wrong" page.) --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 11:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
:::: First, "constant 1/2 in simple r^2 equations" and "1/6 in simple r^3 equations" are ''exactly'' questions of conciseness; which is more concise? <math>\frac{1}{2}\pi r^2</math> or <math>\tau\pi</math>? For these equations, <math>\tau</math> is easily more concise. (And this is the area of debate I really wanted to avoid)--[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 13:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
:::: Second, I was far more concerned about scenarios involving geometric tasks which chose to use {{tau}} rather than {{pi}}, as each of those tasks would need to note how to derive {{tau}} from {{pi}}, which would complicate them. (A trivial complication yes, but still a reduction in their simplicity)--[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 13:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
:::: Third, I really wouldn't mind a [[Pi/Pi and Tau]] which showed how convert from pi to tau and back. That kind of triviality isn't something that bothers me, though it may tend to bother contributors who are completeness-driven. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 13:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
| |||