Rhyme and Reason Behind Radians?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1d20
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Radians Reason
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding the definition of radians, particularly the fact that there are two pi radians in a circle. Some participants suggest redefining radians using tau (2*pi) for clarity, arguing it makes more intuitive sense. The historical perspective indicates that early geometry focused on the diameter, leading to the establishment of pi, while modern mathematics emphasizes the radius, complicating student understanding. Despite the potential for tau to gain traction in educational contexts, it is unlikely to be adopted in academic circles due to established conventions. The conversation highlights the challenges of teaching trigonometry and the persistence of traditional mathematical constants.
1d20
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Preface: This question is a result of personal interest, and has nothing to do with any assignment.

Okay here's the deal; I've tutored trig in the past, and I've noticed one thing that a lot of folks have trouble with is the fact that there are two pi radians per circle. (It doesn't help that pi can't help but remind most of us of a deliciously full pie.)

Anyway, that got me thinking: why are radians defined such that two pi fits in each pie? We could easily redefine radians such that pi = pie, which is much more intuitive. (Don't believe me? Radian angle = S/2R. It works.)

So I'm hoping someone here is a math history buff, and can give me an answer. It'll probably be "Well this is how the first guy did it, so that's how we do it too," but I can hope for a more interesting answer.

Thanks in advance. :)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
1d20 said:
Preface: This question is a result of personal interest, and has nothing to do with any assignment.

Okay here's the deal; I've tutored trig in the past, and I've noticed one thing that a lot of folks have trouble with is the fact that there are two pi radians per circle.

Google "pi is wrong" and you will see many links about this subject. There are a few threads here on Physics Forum as well.

Some people use the Greek letter tau to stand for 2*pi, and then there are exactly tau radians in a circle; half a circle is tau/2, etc. Much more sensible. Maybe this will catch on.

My theory (which I have no confirmation for) is that historically, people invented geometry and trigonometry to measure the size of their fields (agricultural fields, not algebraic ones of course!) so that the diameter of a circle is the most important measurement. Circumference/diameter was what they studied, and that's how they got pi.

However in modern times we understand circles mathematically in terms of the plane and the unit circle; and in that context, the radius is more important. And the circumference divided by the radius is unfortunately 2*pi, from which much student confusion follows.
 
SteveL27 said:
Maybe this will catch on.

It may catch on in education circles, but unlikely in academia. We use tau as a variable in too many fields. The reason why pi never seems to be used as a variable is because we use it as a constant and it's ingrained.

Similarly, you see in high school texts:
\overline{A} to mean the complement of a set, not its closure
the use of \mathbb{J} to be the integers not \mathbb{Z}
the use of cis
and so on. And students have to unlearn these conventions because no academic paper uses them.
 
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Back
Top