2 ms·
> Oh come on. Really I've just tired of it today, and also had to cook dinner. :) > You appealed to elegance and failed to show any. You trot out Euler and t
by ianterrell 15y ago
> Oh come on.
Really I've just tired of it today, and also had to cook dinner. :)
> You appealed to elegance and failed to show any.
You trot out Euler and then don't find it inelegant that his proof uses not a unit circle but a circle with a diameter of 1? Even as you also trot out Euclid who defines circles with radii? Fixing even just that is elegant.
And if you do find a few cases where π is super convenient (probably because you only care about half the rotation of something), feel free to substitute half tau. :)
The forest really is there, in addition to the trees.
But I really am done. Feel free to leave your last (I'm sure to be exceptionally) clever rebuttal for posterity.
- scythe 15y ago>then don't find it inelegant that his proof uses not a unit circle but a circle with a diameter of 1? I don't know, do you find it elegant? It's like a goddamn footnote, that's the whole point! For reference, you trotted out Euclid when you defined the circle. I only pointed out whom you referenced. >And if you do find a few cases where π is super convenient (probably because you only care about half the rotation of something), feel free to substitute half tau. :) yawn It does go without saying that you won't read this post, doesn't it? You didn't read the previous one.