Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ...
5
6
7
8
9
LastLast
  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by Angry Bob View Post
    Just realized something

    3.14 written backwards is 41.3 which looks remarkably like PI.E
    Try 1337% of pi .... see if that gives you a leet meaning of life.

  2. #122
    Warchief godofslack's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Great White North
    Posts
    2,208
    I'm surprised no one point out the issue of when you are using + to represent addition, t to represent time and τ to represent 2π. Writing a formula that involves addition and time is already confusing enough, adding tau to the list would make cause unnecessary confusion that's why π is such a good character because there are no English letters that can be confused with it.

    Well that and 1/2τ^2 is more confusing that 2πr

  3. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by godofslack View Post
    π is such a good character because there are no English letters that can be confused with it.

    πoπe whatsoever.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-11 at 12:10 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Herecius View Post
    I can't make food jokes with Tau.
    Taufu ?

    Taufee Apples rather than Apple Pies ?

  4. #124
    Merely a Setback Sunseeker's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    27,037
    If tau is 2pi, then why should it replace pi? Don't we need to have 1 before we have 2?
    Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.

    Just, be kind.

  5. #125
    Warchief godofslack's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Great White North
    Posts
    2,208
    Quote Originally Posted by schwarzkopf View Post
    πoπe whatsoever
    I only ran into that problem because I couldn't figure out how to write the proper pi. That and pi virtually never runs into n, the only use of n I remember is as a replacement for X when involving geometry.

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by godofslack View Post
    I only ran into that problem because I couldn't figure out how to write the proper pi. That and pi virtually never runs into n, the only use of n I remember is as a replacement for X when involving geometry.
    'n' is used frequently in progression sum formula to represent all values. As for pi and n and tau and t, when all are written properly - all are easy to distinguish.

  7. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by schwarzkopf View Post
    Actually - that is incorrect. D is fundamental by nature, R is the derived quantity.

    Try it out yourself - draw a circle and try and find the radius without first finding the diameter.
    That's silly. How do you find the diameter? You can't just find the distance between two arbitrary points. You have to find the center of the circle. The next step is to find the distance between the center and the edge (the radius). Then you double it to get the diameter.

    In all my years in math and physics (and I am a physicist), I really cannot recall a time I've ever dealt with a diameter instead of a radius; not in analytical calculations, not in defining geometries for simulations, not in proofs for math theorems, ..

    Oh, actually, the machinists prefer to use the diameter, as it is more practical spec for external measurements of cylinders and so forth, so I do use it in schematics.

    Anyway...

  8. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by Auloria View Post
    That's silly. How do you find the diameter? You can't just find the distance between two arbitrary points.
    You draw an enclosing square around the circle, and measure the width of the square. That simple.

    You have to find the center of the circle.
    You glossed over that one didn't you ... do you realise that to find the centre of the circle - you need two bisecting diameters?

    I really cannot recall a time I've ever dealt with a diameter instead of a radius;
    SO you have never used pi in any of your calculations (C/D) ... ? What branch of physics are you into

  9. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by schwarzkopf View Post
    You draw an enclosing square around the circle, and measure the width of the square. That simple.


    You glossed over that one didn't you ... do you realise that to find the centre of the circle - you need two bisecting diameters?



    SO you have never used pi in any of your calculations (C/D) ... ? What branch of physics are you into
    I'll grant you those examples. Now here's one: how do you make a circle? Let's nail a piece of string to a board and tie a pencil to the end, and draw a circle by extending the pencil as far as it can go. The length of the string is the radius of the circle.

    It's ridiculous to say that D is more fundamental than R when the difference is a constant factor of 2. To say one is more "fundamental" kind of misuses the meaning. Any single parameter is fine, and the rest is just convention. Regardless, this is an argument over semantics...

    I never said I didn't use pi. (???) I just said we don't use the diameter.

  10. #130
    Warchief godofslack's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Great White North
    Posts
    2,208
    Quote Originally Posted by schwarzkopf View Post
    'n' is used frequently in progression sum formula to represent all values. As for pi and n and tau and t, when all are written properly - all are easy to distinguish.
    We are talking about math teachers/students here right? I've had professors that can 8s look like Bs and 6s look like Gs, hell I had a teacher for would always write lower case delta as a symbol that looks exactly like d.

    Besides that's what I meant, as a poor man's X (yes I know X usually means any given where as n is used as every given). In most mathematics levels where such confusion would be prevalent people use n to replace X and pi doesn't touch those formulas, where as collision between + t and tau would be fairly common at many levels.
    Last edited by godofslack; 2012-11-11 at 12:47 AM.

  11. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by Auloria View Post
    I'll grant you those examples. Now here's one: how do you make a circle?
    And as you know we define fundamental constants based upon observation, we don't define them on human activities.

    I can tell you now - nature doesn't use a nail and a string to make a circle.

    It's ridiculous to say that D is more fundamental than R when the difference is a constant factor of 2.
    No it isn't , by definition pi is C/D (because both C and D are the raw measurables), there fore any derived quantity from pi is not a fundamental constant. D is measurable without presuming knowledge of pi or r first. R is not - it requires derivation from D and is thus not suitable for basing a fundamental constant on.

    Regardless, this is an argument over semantics...
    Actually - in pure maths and pure physics, the concept of fundamental is pretty well - fundamental

    I never said I didn't use pi. (???)
    Thus the smiley at the end of that line...
    Last edited by schwarzkopf; 2012-11-11 at 12:44 AM.

  12. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by godofslack View Post
    We are talking about math teachers/students here right? I've had professors that can 8s look like Bs and 6s look like Gs, hell I had a teacher for would always write lower case delta as a symbol that looks exactly like d.
    I've had a thermodynamics professor, who, when pressed on whether he was writing a "Z" (which would mean a partition function) or a "2", wasn't actually able to say for sure, as he couldn't understand his own notes.

  13. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by godofslack View Post
    We are talking about math teachers/students here right? I've had professors that can 8s look like Bs and 6s look like Gs, hell I had a teacher for would always write lower case delta as a symbol that looks exactly like d.
    Yeah - I'm saying that t and tau are no easier to confuse than n and pi - so I'm 100% agreeing with you.

  14. #134
    Warchief godofslack's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Great White North
    Posts
    2,208
    Quote Originally Posted by schwarzkopf View Post
    Yeah - I'm saying that t and tau are no easier to confuse than n and pi - so I'm 100% agreeing with you.
    I guess so, but I am talking from personal experience with the t + thing, if you are writing a t without the tail it's virtually indistinguishable and adding tau to it makes it even worse, if you forget the top part of t it looks a lot like tau . I've seen some butchered pi's in my math life, but they usually just replace the upper section of a n with a ~.

  15. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by Mehman View Post
    I've used Tau instead of 2Pi for a while now.
    I was using Tau before it was popular.

  16. #136
    Honestly, I believe the debate is quite pointless, we're discussing about one value being the double of the other.
    Tau is 360°, and Pi is 180° so what? What's so hard and counter-intuitive about that?

    On defence of Pi and it's teaching I want to point out that it is a number kids learn to associate with circumferences way before trigonometry, while calculating the area enclosed in a circle.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kavoo View Post
    Well I do have a penis attached to me as well but I dont know 'a lot' about it, I dont even know how it tastes. Maybe you do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lycoris View Post
    Everyone who does not miss Vanilla has no heart. Whoever wishes it back has no brain.

  17. #137
    I kind of wrinkle my nose at the idea because they picked a very commonly used variable like tau. I'm a little biased, I'm working on a program of measuring lifetimes of radioactive nuclei, and tau is the standard variable used for expressing the lifetime. But throughout the literature, tau gets some serious usage. It's like the letter "e" in the english alphabet. Or at least in the top 6 of the Wheel of Fortune "RSTLNE."

    The problem is that "pi" is an extremely important physical constant throughout math and physics. It's not something you can just change. You really do see it everywhere, it's completely ingrained into the science conscious. Changing it would mean a complete social and economic disaster. I'm talking ATMS spewing fire, planes blowing up mid-flight, the NFL going to a BCS system. Total chaos.

  18. #138
    The Lightbringer Twoddle's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,775
    I wish Microsoft would add Math.Tau to the .NET framework.

  19. #139
    Merely a Setback PACOX's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    26,247
    Troll logic

    2 = 2 1's. Lets replace 1 with 2.

  20. #140
    IMO after listening to this video about tau vs pi, is that its 100% unnecessary. He argues its easier to teach using tau instead of 2pi, well people have learned perfectly well for hundreds of years using 2pi so why would you need to change it? Using it as a substitute for 2pi like h-bar is also dumb since the reason we use h-bar is because it takes a long time to write h/2pi vs h with a slash through it. tau is already used for other variables like torque and repeating use of variables can make things confusing, no knowing whether someone is referring to 2pi or torque without digging into the derivation or having to define it all the time.

    Also why not use 1 deg instead of 360 deg for a circle? Its only 1 rotation so it should only be 1 deg. Same argument, equally dumb.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •