Why is pi defined as C/d instead of C/r?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter StatusX
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of pi as the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter (C/d) versus defining it in terms of the radius (C/r). Participants explore historical, mathematical, and conceptual implications of these definitions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that defining pi as C/r would complicate the relationship, as it would require multiplying by two to obtain the true circumference.
  • Others suggest that expressing the relationship in terms of the radius does not add new information since the relationship between diameter and radius (d=2r) is already established.
  • One participant views the use of diameter as a historical accident and expresses a personal preference against fractions in mathematical expressions.
  • A historical reference is made to Euclid's work, noting that he demonstrated the proportionality of the perimeter of polygons to both the radius and diameter as the number of sides increases.
  • Another participant raises a question about the implications of redefining pi on trigonometric functions and the Euler formula, suggesting that it could preserve certain relationships.
  • There is a playful acknowledgment that the expression e^{i\pi} = 1 is still significant, even if it alters the aesthetic of the equation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the definition of pi should be based on diameter or radius, with no consensus reached on the best approach. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of each definition.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments depend on personal preferences for mathematical expressions, while others reference historical mathematical concepts without resolving the implications of these definitions.

StatusX
Homework Helper
Messages
2,570
Reaction score
2
It seems a lot more natural to define pi by the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the radius, rather than to the diameter. The diameter is hardly ever used in math (at least in my experience), and it seems like most formulas involving pi involve the combination 2pi. Is it a historical accident that we use pi=C/d, or is there a good reason for it?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
.........yeah, I think there's a really good reason for it, if they use radius without multiplying times two then that would not give the true circumference which is what we are relating pi to. Thus not giving us a true value of pie. Although one cannot achieve an exact value of pie. If you really want to see radius there then you can always write pi=C/(2r). One can also define pi as pi=A/(r^2) excuse me if this was not what you were asking for.
 
expressing the relation in terms of the radius doesn't say anything new, since the relation of d=2r is already known. Why not keep it as simple as possible?
 
I'd just consider it a historical accident :smile:. And besides, I don't like fractions, so remembering \frac{\pi}{2}r^2 for the area of a disc would make me sad!

Not to mention the greatest tragedy of all, the destruction of the beauty of Euler's relation e^{i \pi} + 1 = 0.

e^{\frac{i \pi}{2}} + 1 =0 just doesn't look the same!
 
Last edited:
YOu may have a good point in that. I quote about Euclid: He was able to show that the perimeter of the polygon was proportional to the radius (which is half of the diameter), regardless of its size. He then increased the number of sides of the polygon, realizing that as he increased them, the perimeter of the polygon got closer and closer to that of the circle. Therefore, he was able to prove that the perimeter of the circle, or circumference, is proportional to the radius and also to the diameter. http://www.arcytech.org/java/pi/facts.html
 
Suppose you have a column or tree trunk to deal with. Which is easier and more natural to measure, the diameter or radius?
 
Just a question about the destruction of the euler equation that Data talked about. If pi was defined as the ratio between circumference and radius wouldn't that mean something for cos and sin also? So that cos(\pi)= 1 and sin(\pi)=0, and the euler formula therefore is preserved? Or am I completely wrong?
 
Repetit said:
Just a question about the destruction of the euler equation that Data talked about. If pi was defined as the ratio between circumference and radius wouldn't that mean something for cos and sin also? So that cos(\pi)= 1 and sin(\pi)=0, and the euler formula therefore is preserved? Or am I completely wrong?

It would be e^{i \pi} - 1 = 0
 
yes, i suppose e^{i\pi} = 1 is almost as good :) you miss out on the additive identity though!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K