Is the Notation for Inverse Functions Ambiguous?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ebits21
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pi
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
38 replies · 8K views
micromass said:
Just imagine that advanced civilizations in space have missed us because we've been sending pi into space, and not tau :biggrin:

Well, they wouldn't have been so advanced to not recognize we were sending [itex]\tau/2[/itex].
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
HallsofIvy said:
Of course, the reason the Greek's chose to give a symbol for [itex]\pi[/itex] rather than [itex]2\pi[/itex] is that the cirumference of a circle is [itex]2\pi r[/itex] or [itex]\pi d[/itex] and it is much easier to measure the diameter of a log than the radius.
Since when are logs circular? :-p
 
TylerH said:
Since when are logs circular? :-p

By right about the same time cows became spherical.
 
Dickfore said:
By right about the same time cows became spherical.

Wait...cows aren't really spherical?
 
jhae2.718 said:
Wait...cows aren't really spherical?

Just in case you haven't been aware:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
micromass said:
Well I certainly consider pi to be an unfortunate historic mistake. Math would be slightly more beautiful with tau. But this is the way it is and we need to stick with it.

Other unfortunate mistakes are the definition of the gamma function and the notation [tex]\subset[/tex] to mean subset or equal. But there's nothing we can do about those now...

Yes. Notations like sin^-1 are a bit ambiguous quite often.
 
dimension10 said:
Yes. Notations like sin^-1 are a bit ambiguous quite often.

IMHO, it's the notation [itex]sin^n(x)=\left( sin(x) \right)^n[/itex] that is ambiguous, rather than inverse notation. In general, [itex]f^{-1}[/itex] is ubiquitously the inverse of f.