EPTGet rid of pi? - Page 12
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
meegrean
Thailand7699 Posts
| ||
|
mcht
Germany201 Posts
to those who understand it anyways it wont matter what constants they use | ||
|
revy
United States1524 Posts
On July 02 2011 20:12 OrchidThief wrote: Pi is used as symbols in formulas as well. As a physicist I think this change makes a lot of sense. If nothing else, then just because plancks constant/reduced would be a lot easier to remember. If it helps people understand the basic math better for some then by all means. The biggest effect for anyone with an understanding beyond basic geometry/trigonometry, would be having to write less on blackboards, on computers and so on. Which ones? I've seen Pi before but never pi, that one is treated sacred as best I can tell. | ||
|
OrchidThief
Denmark2298 Posts
On July 02 2011 22:08 revy wrote: Which ones? I've seen Pi before but never pi, that one is treated sacred as best I can tell. I'm positive I've encountered it somewhere, though the specific situation eludes me. But my point was that just because a greek symbol is used in a formula somewhere does not make it universally sacred. (And technically I did write Pi and not pi. =b ) | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
Using pi or a constant with a value of 2 times pi is virtually the same. No-one gets rid of pi if tau would be used. It's the same, just scaled by two. I personally never liked that a full period is "2 pi" for example. Why two? With a constant of a value of 2 pi, it would be easier. | ||
|
edc
United States666 Posts
I think that it's too late to do the change, and it's not that big of a deal anyway. | ||
|
Batibot
Philippines348 Posts
| ||
|
Av4st
Canada92 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
The area of a circle for tau would be tau/2 * r^2 instead of pi * r^2. That's plenty ugly. Additionally, any angle above pi is larger than 180 degrees, or improper angles which could be simplified down. There is absolutely no reason is care enough to change. I don't see how it's any simpler to learn when you're younger. I personally never liked that a full period is "2 pi" for example. Why two? With a constant of a value of 2 pi, it would be easier. But if you actually look at a curve (which is how it is taught), it makes perfect sense. It goes up and comes down at pi, and then goes down and up at 2*pi. So right now the zeroes of a sine curve are at k*pi. Changing one part for simplicity will make other parts uglier. | ||
|
Craton
United States17235 Posts
| ||
|
LastWish
2013 Posts
Edit: We should also change the time, because I don't think 24 hours is enough for one day. Instead we should have "zours" and the day would have 48 zours. Would be great. | ||
|
RoyalCheese
Czech Republic745 Posts
| ||
|
Noital
Poland27 Posts
| ||
|
Workforce
Sweden70 Posts
On July 02 2011 22:40 DoubleReed wrote: Euler's identity (e^(pi*i) = -1) and the area of a circle/sphere are really the best arguments against. And the fact is that area is a lot more useful in actual problems. Pi is fine. The area of a circle for tau would be tau/2 * r^2 instead of pi * r^2. That's plenty ugly. Additionally, any angle above pi is larger than 180 degrees, or improper angles which could be simplified down. There is absolutely no reason is care enough to change. I don't see how it's any simpler to learn when you're younger. No. Euler's identity becomes even more elegant with Tau ( e^(i*Tau) = 1), which also neatly highlights the geometric interpretation of the formula (That one TURN in the complex plane takes you around in a circle and back to the same place). Also, lets look at some common quadratic forms that pop up in physics: *The distance a body falls in earth's gravitational field is (1/2)gt^2 *The energy stored in spring is (1/2)kx^2 *The kinetic energy of a body is (1/2)mv^2 Aaaand i guess you can see where this is going... *The area of a circle is (1/2)Tau*r^2 BAM. | ||
|
videogames
United States103 Posts
| ||
|
Casta
Denmark234 Posts
On July 02 2011 21:27 OrchidThief wrote: Couldn't you make that argument for the SI system as well? (Or any changes to conventions in math, really). It seems like a really conservative approach. Well mathematics is very conservative. If you want to change something already defined or proven in the world of mathematics you better have a very good reason backed up by solid logic and proof. This reason seems too small and only really comes down to the oppinion of the person doing the calculations. That said if you want to use tau instead nothing is stopping you, but I think it will never ever replace pi entirely, it will always just be known as 2pi. | ||
|
Barbiero
Brazil5259 Posts
On July 02 2011 23:17 videogames wrote: So e^ipi+1=0 would be no more? it'd be e^i*tau=1 | ||
|
KharadBanar
Austria463 Posts
Also, it would actually be harder to learn, because we would need to explain to future generations why π actually existed in the first place, and they would have to keep two different constants (just by a factor of 2) in their heads all the time. I believe it is not worth the effort. | ||
|
lofung
Hong Kong298 Posts
- math major (and also econ) | ||
|
OrchidThief
Denmark2298 Posts
On July 02 2011 23:29 KharadBanar wrote: While I agree with the "pro-tau" arguments in this thread, I would like to highlight to you all again the difficulties involved in switching. π has been used for centuries in every other mathematical/physical paper. You cannot simply change that because another constant is better suited for the task (which I also think it is). Also, it would actually be harder to learn, because we would need to explain to future generations why π actually existed in the first place, and they would have to keep two different constants (just by a factor of 2) in their heads all the time. I believe it is not worth the effort. "While I agree with the "pro-SI" arguments in this thread, I would like to highlight to you all again the difficulties involved in switching. Pounds, feet and gallons has been used for centuries in every other mathematical/physical paper. You cannot simply change that because another constant is better suited for the task (which I also think it is). Also, it would actually be harder to learn, because we would need to explain to future generations why pounds, feet and gallons actually existed in the first place, and they would have to keep two different constants in their heads all the time. I believe it is not worth the effort." Just teasing, but arguments like "people would need to keep two sets of constants in their heads" isn't really a valid argument, because that argument can be said about any advances that has ever happened in science. Effort is probably a decent argument, while this change would make it easier for some to initially understand the concept of pi/tau, it's really trivial later on. If you wanted to switch you'd just teach the new generation tau, be consistent and when they got to more advanced math it would be trivial anyway. | ||
| ||
