Pi Is Wrong
math.utah.edu
Pi Is Wrong
1–10 of 69 posts
Re: Pi Is Wrong
#2Instead of whether we should use Pi or 2*Pi, I find much more interesting R. Buckminster Fuller's statements that "Pi is operationally irrelevant" and that "Nature is not using Pi".
"Inasmuch as the kind of mathematics I had learned of in school required the use of the XYZ coordinate system and the necessity of placing π in calculating the spheres, I wondered, "to how many decimal places does nature carry out π before she decides that the computation can't be concluded?" Next I wondered, "to how many aribtrary decimal places does nature carry out the transcendental irrational before she decides to say it's a bad job and call it off?" If nature uses π she has to do what we call fudging of her design which means improvising, compromisingly. I thought sympathetically of nature's having to make all those myriad frustrated decisions each time she made a bubble. I didn't see how she managed to formulate the wake of every ship while managing the rest of the universe if she had to make all those decisions. So I said to myself, "I don't think nature uses π. I think she has some other mathematical way of coordinating her undertakings.""
From http://content.stamen.com/buckminster_fuller_and_the_beauty_...
Re: Pi Is Wrong
#3I tell people it's half right :-)
Re: Pi Is Wrong
#4Instead of whether we should use Pi or 2*Pi, I find much more interesting R. Buckminster Fuller's statements that "Pi is operationally irrelevant" and that "Nature is not using Pi". "Inasmuch as the kind of mathematics I had learned of in school required the use of the XYZ coordinate system and the necessity of placing π in calculating the spheres, I wondered, "to how many decimal places does nature carry out π befor…
All the evidence is that nature does implausibly difficult computations all the time. Multiplying by pi has nothing on calculating the evolution of a quantum system.
Re: Pi Is Wrong
#5Instead of whether we should use Pi or 2*Pi, I find much more interesting R. Buckminster Fuller's statements that "Pi is operationally irrelevant" and that "Nature is not using Pi". "Inasmuch as the kind of mathematics I had learned of in school required the use of the XYZ coordinate system and the necessity of placing π in calculating the spheres, I wondered, "to how many decimal places does nature carry out π befor…
All the evidence is that nature does implausibly difficult computations all the time. Multiplying by pi has nothing on calculating the evolution of a quantum system.
We don't really have any evidence at all of exactly what nature computes or how it does it.
We do have models that mimic observations in nature, and those models do include some very difficult calculations. However the map is not the territory. We can't be sure that the models' inner workings mimic nature's inner workings, any more than you can conclude that two watches have identical mechanisms because they keep the same time. So there's the possibility that any or all of that difficulty could turn out to be epicycles.
Re: Pi Is Wrong
#6[deleted]
Re: Pi Is Wrong
#7Just slightly a link-bait-esque title. Can we rename it to e.g. “Tau: Why 2π Would Be a Better Constant than Pi”?
Re: Pi Is Wrong
#8I've seen articles like this before, but wondered if pi originates from astronomy working with a more or less 180 degree horizon.
Re: Pi Is Wrong
#9Unfortunately, mathematical notation has tons of historical cruft like this. And there will be people who will fight tooth and nail to preserve all those artificial complexities.
Personally, I always believed that improving the notation would have huge benefits in the future.
Re: Pi Is Wrong
#10Its tendentious title aside, all very useful and reasonable, up to but not including the "\newpi" symbol at the end of the article, which IMHO is an abomination with three legs.