Young earth and downplaying evolution is one thing. But this is downright CRAZY!
No, really, pi is wrong: The Tau Manifesto (Tau Day, 2010)
101–110 of 159 posts
Re: No, really, pi is wrong: The Tau Manifesto (Tau Day, 2010)
#102Perfect; to my lisp startup file was just added: (defconstant tau #.(* 2 pi)) Regarding adoption, I think it's worth pointing out that these sorts of conventions can and do shift within a generation. I recall quite clearly while growing up the convention for indicating years = the year one [1] was B.C. and A.D. It seems like over the past few years we've definitively decided on B.C.E. and C.E. instead [2]. All it rea…
I have no problem with people trying to do this in principle. I really don't care enough, but other people can. The symbol "tau", however, is an especially poor choice for a trigonometric symbol, because it's also used for torque. You won't get many physics teachers to change over if every time you try to calculate a torque from a force and radius, you run into a symbol conflict.
These arguments are assuming that tau would be a total replacement for pi in all situations. Why not just keep using pi in situations where you are doing calculations with torque?
Re: No, really, pi is wrong: The Tau Manifesto (Tau Day, 2010)
#103Perfect; to my lisp startup file was just added: (defconstant tau #.(* 2 pi)) Regarding adoption, I think it's worth pointing out that these sorts of conventions can and do shift within a generation. I recall quite clearly while growing up the convention for indicating years = the year one [1] was B.C. and A.D. It seems like over the past few years we've definitively decided on B.C.E. and C.E. instead [2]. All it rea…
Ugh, I know this is slightly offtopic, but there's nothing more I dislike than B.C.E and C.E. I can understand not trying to promote a Christian-centric worldview, but by only changing the labels, they accomplish nothing. Now, the birth of Christ sets a 'common era,' which arguable makes it _more_ 'offensive' than just acknowledging what happened on that particular day.
Why can't we dispense with the annotation completely? BC/BCE counts backwards, so let's just say 1970 or -1970.
edit: posted this before I saw Groxx's reply below
Re: No, really, pi is wrong: The Tau Manifesto (Tau Day, 2010)
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think real. Although I didn't read all of the article I think the main thrust was that since 2pi appears in so many places in math that a constant based on the ratio of circumference to radius rather than diameter would be more appropriate. Realistically I think there are better ways to spend your time but ....
Is it like converting from Queen's system to metric system in U.S.?
Not exactly, since there is only one constant to convert (not many units) and the conversion factor is very straightforward (2 pi = 1 tau instead of 39.37 inches = 1 meter). But yes in that many people would have to change their ways.
Re: No, really, pi is wrong: The Tau Manifesto (Tau Day, 2010)
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ugh, I know this is slightly offtopic, but there's nothing more I dislike than B.C.E and C.E. I can understand not trying to promote a Christian-centric worldview, but by only changing the labels, they accomplish nothing. Now, the birth of Christ sets a 'common era,' which arguable makes it _more_ 'offensive' than just acknowledging what happened on that particular day.
The switch to B.C.E. and C.E. is also because the year of Jesus' birth is debated. Some believe he was born in 4 C.E. At least that's what I recall from school many many years ago. Personally, I prefer "B.C." and "A.D." because those two are more different from each other (edit distance of two) than "B.C.E." and "C.E." (edit distance of one, unless you count periods). Edit: Wikipedia says Jesus was born in 5 B.C. ( h…
While you are correct that most scholars don't believe that Jesus was born in 1 AD, the reason the change was made was to distance scholarship from Christianity.
Re: No, really, pi is wrong: The Tau Manifesto (Tau Day, 2010)
#106What I would like to see is an informational analysis where you take something like a thousand common equations and look at how they would be expressed with pi versus with tau. If you can show they would take significantly fewer bits of information using tau, then tau would be objectively superior.
I repectfully think you may be overlooking two things:
1. While storing fewer bits may be objectively superior in one sense, it is overlooking the far more significant question of which helps a human understand and work with the equestions. Math is encoded into the universe, but our expressions of it exist for our own understanding.
2. We get a lot of choice in how we encode information, and that choice can change the number of bits used substantially. For instance:
c = 2 \pi r
c = \pi d
c = \tau r
c = 1/2 \tau d
All say the same thing, but their lengths vary considerably.
Re: No, really, pi is wrong: The Tau Manifesto (Tau Day, 2010)
#107I may get down modded for this but I just have to say, this is more like a religious propaganda than science. Throughout the article they have only demonstrated how a particular community is more comfortable with using double pi. I totally believe in what wwortiz said in his/her(sorry cannot open your website) post. If they like the tau so much they should be writing papers on its advantage. I think scientists should…
Your comment doesn't fit the article very well which may be why it is being downvoted.
"this is more like a religious propaganda than science"
First of all, it is about math, not science. And it is not like religious propaganda, which relies on authority or faith. It clearly and cogently explains reasons why using tau is better than pi.
"Throughout the article they have only demonstrated how a particular community is more comfortable with using double pi."
No community was mentioned. Just ideas.
"If they like the tau so much they should be writing papers on its advantage."
The manifesto is exactly that: a "paper" about its advantage.
"I think scientists should be more concerned about finding and confirming important things than releasing such propaganda."
From the manifesto: "Tau Manifesto author Michael Hartl is an educator and entrepreneur." He is not a scientist.
So that's probably why people are downvoting you. You probably just skimmed the article instead of reading it and therefore misunderstood the article.
Re: No, really, pi is wrong: The Tau Manifesto (Tau Day, 2010)
#108I may get down modded for this but I just have to say, this is more like a religious propaganda than science. Throughout the article they have only demonstrated how a particular community is more comfortable with using double pi. I totally believe in what wwortiz said in his/her(sorry cannot open your website) post. If they like the tau so much they should be writing papers on its advantage. I think scientists should…
I've heard it said that a good notation is worth 10 good theorems.
Re: No, really, pi is wrong: The Tau Manifesto (Tau Day, 2010)
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would suggest a change to uppercase Gamma, which looks like a T, kinda. Also, it has always struck me as a looking kind of like a moment arm. Something like this is bound to happen if mathematics pedagogy moves to tau as the circle constant, which it should. The math department has no motivation to respect physics convention, and the physics department will just have to get in line, eventually.
Or physicists/engineers will do their own thing, as seen by using j = sqrt(-1). Also, uppercase gamma is already used, too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_function
Granted, but interference with mechanical torque is unlikely.
Greek letters are pretty polysemantic in the context of maths and physics.