The Pi Manifesto
thepimanifesto.com
The Pi Manifesto
1–10 of 85 posts
Re: The Pi Manifesto
#2I disagree with change for change's sake. This whole tau thing is born of some idealist that thinks things only make sense his/her own way.
The only thing I didn't see in the article is that the symbol visually looks like a T, so when you see it in a formula, you have to really look at it to know what's going on.
Re: The Pi Manifesto
#3I've considered refactoring my pathfinding code - 2.0 is this magic constant that is floating around all over my code.
Inertia has prevented me.
Re: The Pi Manifesto
#4When you ask hard-core Tauists what the area of a unit circle is, do they actually answer "tau over two"? Or do they just say "pi"?
By the way, this whole discussion reminds me of what W.V.O. Quine called "mathematosis".
Re: The Pi Manifesto
#5Damnit, this is just as bad as the tau manifesto. The point is that it doesn't matter what the bloody constant is, we don't need any -more- goddamn manifestos. Call it an arc constant or an angle constant or whatever you want.
However, there is one massive abuse of terminology that is driving me insane, which is the use of the phrase "Quadratic forms". E = 1/2 k x^2 is not a quadratic form. A quadratic form is a homogeneous polynomial of degree two, and it's a topic discussed in number theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_form
The vast majority of people will never encounter a legitimate quadratic form. Call it a quadratic equation or whatever -- it's not a quadratic form. Both the tau manifesto and the pi manifesto got this bit manifestly wrong.
Re: The Pi Manifesto
#6For me this debate is the monumental evidence that when people get obsessed over something their intellectual openness shrinks to a very small dividend of pi, sorry I meant tau :)
Re: The Pi Manifesto
#7Damnit, this is just as bad as the tau manifesto. The point is that it doesn't matter what the bloody constant is, we don't need any -more- goddamn manifestos. Call it an arc constant or an angle constant or whatever you want. However, there is one massive abuse of terminology that is driving me insane, which is the use of the phrase "Quadratic forms". E = 1/2 k x^2 is not a quadratic form. A quadratic form is a homo…
I don't see why E = 1/2 k x^2 isn't a quadratic form. It's a quadratic form in a vector space of dimension 1 (here, the real numbers), which matrix is just (1/2 k).
In fact here, we're dealing with a (degenerated) conic.
What's your point? Should the author have written E(x) = ...?
Besides, tau is pointless because a tau pie isn't nearly as fun as a pi pie.
Re: The Pi Manifesto
#8When you ask hard-core Tauists what the area of a unit circle is, do they actually answer "tau over two"? Or do they just say "pi"? By the way, this whole discussion reminds me of what W.V.O. Quine called "mathematosis".
personally, i'd answer "half tau".
half tau r^2 is a fine equation for an area.
Re: The Pi Manifesto
#9Damnit, this is just as bad as the tau manifesto. The point is that it doesn't matter what the bloody constant is, we don't need any -more- goddamn manifestos. Call it an arc constant or an angle constant or whatever you want. However, there is one massive abuse of terminology that is driving me insane, which is the use of the phrase "Quadratic forms". E = 1/2 k x^2 is not a quadratic form. A quadratic form is a homo…
I don't see why E = 1/2 k x^2 isn't a quadratic form. It's a quadratic form in a vector space of dimension 1 (here, the real numbers), which matrix is just (1/2 k). In fact here, we're dealing with a (degenerated) conic. What's your point? Should the author have written E(x) = ...? Besides, tau is pointless because a tau pie isn't nearly as fun as a pi pie.
At best, it's a cubic form, since the spring constant is also a variable. Similarly 1/2 a t^2 is a cubic form. pi r^2 however is a quadratic form.
Re: The Pi Manifesto
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see why E = 1/2 k x^2 isn't a quadratic form. It's a quadratic form in a vector space of dimension 1 (here, the real numbers), which matrix is just (1/2 k). In fact here, we're dealing with a (degenerated) conic. What's your point? Should the author have written E(x) = ...? Besides, tau is pointless because a tau pie isn't nearly as fun as a pi pie.
At best, it's a cubic form, since the spring constant is also a variable. Similarly 1/2 a t^2 is a cubic form. pi r^2 however is a quadratic form.
Nope, check the introduction section of your wikipedia link.
It's like saying that f(x) = ax is a function of two variables. Indeed it is, but it's commonly accepted in mathematics to use it as a function of one variable (x), with a parameter a.