Pi is wrong!

  • Thread starter CGUE
  • Start date
  • #1
23
0
A very interesting article for all.

http://www.math.utah.edu/~palais/pi.html

Quote from the article:
"What really worries me is that the first thing we broadcast to the cosmos to demonstrate our 'intelligence' is 3.14... I am a bit concerned about what the lifeforms who receive it will do after they stop laughing..."

It's saying e.g.

cos(x + π) = cos(x) ???

:uhh: :uhh: :uhh:
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
cristo
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
8,122
73
It's saying e.g.

cos(x + π) = cos(x) ???

:uhh: :uhh: :uhh:

No it's not; he's just defined some new symbol (a pi sign with three 'legs') to be equal to 2pi, and is then saying that cos(x+newpi)=cos(x).

This doesn't really change anything!
 
  • #3
355
3
While the article's name is terrible (and the article itself isn't all that well written), he does have a point. I can't think of anywhere I've found [itex]\pi[/itex] to be more useful than [itex]2\pi[/itex]. It would simplify a lot of things, and, if I did mathematics in a vacuum and never had to interact with anyone else, I'd strongly consider inventing a symbol for [itex]2\pi[/itex] and using that everywhere instead of [itex]\pi[/itex]

Of course the difference between them is always related by a factor of 2 (or some power), so pi itself isn't that clumsy. But it's similar to the way that physicists decided that [itex]\hbar[/itex] is slightly less clumsy than h
 
  • #4
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
10,025
134
I have some sympathy for Palais' point, but then again, why bother overmuch?
Many formulae will become uglier, rather than prettier, with the new pi-symbol, not the least Euler's identity. :smile:
 
  • #5
355
3
I have some sympathy for Palais' point, but then again, why bother overmuch?
Many formulae will become uglier, rather than prettier, with the new pi-symbol, not the least Euler's identity. :smile:

Maybe I'm just being clouded by the earliness of the day and maybe I just haven't had enough advanced mathematics to appreciate the choice of pi over 2pi, but I can't think of any formulas that would be more ugly. To me, Euler's identity looks better as [itex]e^{is}=1[/itex] (where s = 2pi) and [itex]e^{\frac{1}{2}is}=-1[/itex] because it better mirrors how you use it. Euler's formula projects an angle onto the unit circle in the complex plane. [itex]e^{is}=1[/itex] expresses that a full turn is the same as doing nothing at all while [itex]e^{\frac{1}{2}is}=-1[/itex] expresses that a half turn is the same as turning around.

(Sorry to "argue" about this... It's not that I have anything invested in the conversation; I'm just bored and have nothing else to do at this time of day lol)
 
  • #6
HallsofIvy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
41,847
965
This has been discussed before. [itex]\pi[/itex] was originally defined as the ratio of circumference to diameter. Why not "circumference to radius"? Because it is much easier to actually measure the diameter of a circle- especially if the "circle" in question is a long tree trunk. Even with a mathematical "circle", determining the radius involves either first finding the diameter (and then dividing by 2) or first finding the center of the circle. Just finding the diameter is much easier.
 
  • #7
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
19,614
2,991
I thought that new pi looked like pi overstruck with tau, or perhaps tau-pi.

There would also be the case of using 2[itex]\tau\!\pi[/itex] where one would use 4[itex]\pi[/itex]. So I don't see an advantage of introducing a new symbol.
 
  • #8
RonL
Gold Member
1,102
215
No it's not; he's just defined some new symbol (a pi sign with three 'legs') to be equal to 2pi, and is then saying that cos(x+newpi)=cos(x).

This doesn't really change anything!



I have always been amused by how the picture of a square pie was such a great help in remembering how to determine the area of a circle, but now that my square pie might have three legs, is really a hoot!!:rofl:
 
  • #9
355
3
There would also be the case of using 2[itex]\tau\!\pi[/itex] where one would use 4[itex]\pi[/itex]. So I don't see an advantage of introducing a new symbol.
Sure... but how often does one reaaally talk about surface area?

HallsofIvy: I was thinking more from a mathematical aesthetic point of view, but there are definitely a lot more engineers than there are mathematicians!
 
  • #10
Hootenanny
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
9,621
7
Sure... but how often does one reaaally talk about surface area?
Who mentioned surface area?
 
  • #11
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,950
19
I propose that we use the symbol "toopie" to represent this quantity. Toopie is, of course, the symbol [itex]2\pi[/itex]. It's apparent similarity to the product expression of 2 with [itex]\pi[/itex] is an added convenience.
 
  • #12
Hootenanny
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
9,621
7
I propose that we use the symbol "toopie" to represent this quantity. Toopie is, of course, the symbol [itex]2\pi[/itex]. It's apparent similarity to the product expression of 2 with [itex]\pi[/itex] is an added convenience.
:rofl:
 
  • #13
3,042
15
You nerds. Stop tagging this thing with pi with ever increasing significant digits or the number of tags will approach infinity!!
 

Related Threads on Pi is wrong!

Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
64
Views
9K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
87
Views
175K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
3K
M
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
Top