» Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Tau VS Pi
Pi   44%  [ 17 ]
Tau   23%  [ 9 ]
Both   26%  [ 10 ]
Neither   2%  [ 1 ]   2%  [ 1 ]

edit:IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT TAU/PI IS, READ THE POSTS BEFORE VOTING!

Basically, Tau is 2pi, and it has some benefits in some circumstances.
Otherwise, Pi is easier, but I'm impartial.

The title says it all! What is your opinion on the topic?

EDIT:

EDIT EDIT:
►π Manifesto
►τ Manifesto

EDIT EDIT EDIT:
I will be keeping track of the scores daily (as much as I can), ending at 7:00 "my time"(-4)

EDIT EDIT EDIT EDIT:
Don't forget Pau, the least useful of them all! EDIT EDIT EDIT EDIT EDIT: Code:
`[url=https://www.cemetech.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13568][img]https://image.ibb.co/hp32Va/Untitled.png[/img][/url]`

I made it in like 30 seconds, so better ones are appreciated.
Banner V2: Code:
`[url=https://www.cemetech.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13568][img]https://image.ibb.co/gsZ9Aa/Untitled.jpg[/img][/url]`

Code:
`[url=https://www.cemetech.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13568][img]https://image.ibb.co/d6KjAa/Untitled.jpg[/img][/url]`

All of these are crud, none of them fit in the sig space...
I like pi better. Always use it, always have used it. Tau seems cool, but I'm just more used to pi Battlesquid wrote:
I like pi better. Always use it, always have used it. Tau seems cool, but I'm just more used to pi My opinion is that tau is better than pi, and we should use tau instead.

The argument? It actually stretches farther than I can state. But I'll try.

Right off the bat, a layman looking at enough formulas would see something unusual about pi simply based on the formulas it appears in. I'll let you figure out the problem with these formulas:    Every π there appears with a 2. While not occurring in every formula out there, this is actually a fairly common occurrence. What could this mean for pi?

If we look at radians, one full turn is not 1, but 2π radians. Radians, of course, are arclength/radius for a sector of any circle. Because a full circle is 2πr, this number of course goes out to 2π. Renaming this number to be τ gives out a simpler answer, and it's easier to understand (τ/2 radians, thus, is 1/2 the circle, etc).

As well, the Euler's Identity becomes more meaningful with tau. e^iτ = 1 tells you that, to rotate a complex point by τ radians, you multiply it by 1, i.e. it goes all the way around back to where it was. The "normal" form e^iπ + 1 = 0 tells me nothing until I rearrange it a bit:

e^iπ = -1
e^iτ/2 = -1

Ah, now it's clear with tau. In order to rotate a complex point by τ/2 radians, or 1/2 turn, multiply by -1.
The argument about how the pi version "relates all 5 of the most important constants in math" is just numerology to me, but I can play that game, too:

e^iτ = 1 + 0

What now!

If tau made every formula more simplified, this would be the end of the argument. However, not everything in mathematics is simple, and there are formulas like this:

A = πr²

One might look at this formula and think "ah, there is a pi, unadorned, in a formula Archimedes proved himself!" and believe pi is good and all is right with the world. But there's something fishy about this formula.

Why the sudden love for the radius, π? I thought circles were about their diameter! That's the definition of π, after all: C/D . If you express the circle constant in terms of diameter, you should really express the area formula in terms of diameter as well, and suddenly your rose-colored glasses are knocked off of you:

A = 1/4 πD²

In fact, what Archimedes proved was not that A=πr². He didn't have modern algebraic notation to do that. Instead, what he proved was that the area of a circle is equal to that of a triangle with base C and height r. Since the area of a triangle is 1/2 bh , this gives us a formula of:

A = 1/2 C r

Or, substituting τr for C:

A = 1/2 τr²

The factor of 1/2 isn't arbitrary. In fact, it comes from the integral of circumference, from 0 to r. This relationship is clear to see with τr and 1/2 τr², but not so clearly with 2πr and πr².

In fact, there is a clear formula for the surface area and volume of ANY n-sphere:  This gives rise to the following recurrence relation: Q.E.D.

∩∀⊥
Nerd ^^

Can U make poems employing pi digits alone?

I personally feel like tau should replace 2pi and where pi is used (not 2pi), then that's fine.
I am joining the JWinslow tau cult
Tau is objectively superior. The argument that pi is what most people grew up with/are used to using is a very weak one, because from a utilitarian point of view, that which maximizes utility is the best action, which in this case, is using τ over π. Here is the image that convinced me, in case other people might be willing to question their paradigms...  Sure, the difference is exaggerate, but the idea is that with tau, the fractions are much more meaningful (1/3 of a circle in radians with tau is τ/3, which is (2π)/3.) Lol at mr womp womp.

Also, Decbot's karma system agrees tau is better:
Quote:
4:28:47 PM [JWinslow23] !karma pi
4:28:48 PM [#] [DecBot3] pi has a score of 0.
4:28:50 PM [JWinslow23] !karma tau
4:28:51 PM [#] [DecBot3] tau has a score of 3.
4:28:58 PM [JWinslow23] That's wrong: Pi is now at 2, and Tau at 5.
Today, there was actually a problem on the board in my computer science class (probably from the last hour). It read something like this:

"You are in a forest. There is a road 1 mile away from you. What is the shortest distance you would need to walk to be 100% sure you find the road?"

I figured out the answer to be tau + 1 miles. Meaning, you walk 1 mile in any direction, and then walk the circle with the center where you started and a radius of 1 mile. Circumference = tau * r, so the answer ended up being tau + 1 miles.

And they say tau is useless in math Pi. 100% of the calculators that uses pi doesn't use tau.

Also, Wolframalpha gives 1.6180339 for tau, and 3.14159265 for pi, so clearly tau is wrong.
Do you really expect a non-biased answer on pi day? PT_ wrote:
Pi. 100% of the calculators that uses pi doesn't use tau.

Also, Wolframalpha gives 1.6180339 for tau, and 3.14159265 for pi, so clearly tau is wrong.

1.6180339... is Phi, the "golden ratio"

And Wolfram Alpha has been wrong before.
PT_ wrote:
Pi. 100% of the calculators that uses pi doesn't use tau.

Also, Wolframalpha gives 1.6180339 for tau, and 3.14159265 for pi, so clearly tau is wrong.

That's because of an (obscure, only in Europe) notation of the golden ratio as tau.

But this shows, there is precedent for using tau to signify a fundamental constant. The fact that Wolframalpha gives the wrong answer when inputting "tau" is for me enough not to use it  JWinslow23 wrote:
PT_ wrote:
Pi. 100% of the calculators that uses pi doesn't use tau.

Also, Wolframalpha gives 1.6180339 for tau, and 3.14159265 for pi, so clearly tau is wrong.

That's because of an (obscure, only in Europe) notation of the golden ratio as tau.

But this shows, there is precedent for using tau to signify a fundamental constant. (speaking as a neutral)

I feel like tau should be left as 2pi, and neither is better than the other.

JWinslow ♥'s τ!
PT_ wrote:
The fact that Wolframalpha gives the wrong answer when inputting "tau" is for me enough not to use it  Perhaps we can petition WolframAlpha to add the circle constant tau as a disambiguation.

Until then, calculations with tau work in Google.
Well, WolframAlpha is far more superior with calculations compared to Google, so I don't mind what Google says /me runs
_iPhoenix_ wrote:
JWinslow23 wrote:
PT_ wrote:
Pi. 100% of the calculators that uses pi doesn't use tau.

Also, Wolframalpha gives 1.6180339 for tau, and 3.14159265 for pi, so clearly tau is wrong.

That's because of an (obscure, only in Europe) notation of the golden ratio as tau.

But this shows, there is precedent for using tau to signify a fundamental constant. (speaking as a neutral)

I feel like tau should be left as 2pi, and neither is better then the other.

JWinslow ♥'s τ!

* than
JWinslow23 wrote:
_iPhoenix_ wrote:
JWinslow23 wrote:
PT_ wrote:
Pi. 100% of the calculators that uses pi doesn't use tau.

Also, Wolframalpha gives 1.6180339 for tau, and 3.14159265 for pi, so clearly tau is wrong.

That's because of an (obscure, only in Europe) notation of the golden ratio as tau.

But this shows, there is precedent for using tau to signify a fundamental constant. (speaking as a neutral)

I feel like tau should be left as 2pi, and neither is better then the other.

JWinslow ♥'s τ!

* than

Fine. I'll fix it. But I'll §pam §ection §ign§ fir§t.
§§§§§§§
Ok I'm done.

Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

»
» Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
» All times are UTC - 5 Hours

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum