Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pi Is Wrong

math.utah.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 69 posts

Re: Pi Is Wrong

#11

Post by rquantz »

bunderbunder wrote: post #5
lmm wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Exactly -- nature isn't doing any calculations. The correct statement would be "it takes difficult calculations to describe what nature does using numbers."

Re: Pi Is Wrong

#12

Post by lutorm »

pwpwp wrote: post #2

Instead 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…

Hogwash. Mathematics is a way of describing nature, not the other way around. And doesn't Gödel's incompleteness theorem make it clear that any such attempt must necessarily be flawed?

Re: Pi Is Wrong

#13

Post by lutorm »

kingkawn wrote: post #8

I've seen articles like this before, but wondered if pi originates from astronomy working with a more or less 180 degree horizon.

Whether pi or 2pi or 4pi is more convenient depends on whether you're working with circumference, area, or solid angle. Circumference was probably the easiest thing to measure.

Re: Pi Is Wrong

#14

Post by archgoon »

alanh wrote: post #7

Just slightly a link-bait-esque title. Can we rename it to e.g. “Tau: Why 2π Would Be a Better Constant than Pi”?

Tau is pretty much designed for link bait. It's worse than the programming flamewars, and on even shakier ground when people claim that it matters. Just wait until people start calculating the amount of energy saved if people used tau instead of 2 pi.

Re: Pi Is Wrong

#16

Post by m_for_monkey »

lutorm wrote: post #12
pwpwp wrote: post #2

Instead 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…

Hogwash. Mathematics is a way of describing nature, not the other way around. And doesn't Gödel's incompleteness theorem make it clear that any such attempt must necessarily be flawed?

"Hogwash"

I wouldn't dare to say that about Dr Fuller...

"Mathematics is a way of describing nature, not the other way around."

He doesn't say otherwise, he says that our description of nature (that we are using pi) is flawed.

Re: Pi Is Wrong

#18

Post by kang »

You can downvote me, but this is an overkill;

All gungho just because pi sounded like pie and it went viral just like kolaveri di.

Re: Pi Is Wrong

#19

Post by backprojection »

m_for_monkey wrote: post #16
lutorm wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hogwash. Mathematics is a way of describing nature, not the other way around. And doesn't Gödel's incompleteness theorem make it clear that any such attempt must necessarily be flawed?

"Hogwash" I wouldn't dare to say that about Dr Fuller... "Mathematics is a way of describing nature, not the other way around." He doesn't say otherwise, he says that our description of nature (that we are using pi) is flawed.

"he says that our description of nature (that we are using pi) is flawed"

Every description we'll ever have will probably be flawed to some degree.

I concur that it's hogwash

Re: Pi Is Wrong

#20

Post by brudgers »

lutorm wrote: post #12
pwpwp wrote: post #2

Instead 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…

Hogwash. Mathematics is a way of describing nature, not the other way around. And doesn't Gödel's incompleteness theorem make it clear that any such attempt must necessarily be flawed?

The description of a thing is not the thing itself.
Post reply on HN