3 ms·
Yes, even that one gets more beautiful, too. Look at the usual equation: A = πr². Why is there no "2" there? Let's derive it, and in particular, let's derive
by deathanatos 2y ago
Yes, even that one gets more beautiful, too.
Look at the usual equation: A = πr². Why is there no "2" there?
Let's derive it, and in particular, let's derive it from the onion proof, which is that a circle's area is composed of many small circles, arranged concentrically, like a 2D onion:
A = ∫_0^r 2πt dt
There's that blasted 2 again. The tau form is more beautiful:
A = ∫_0^r τt dt
Integrate it, and you'll get A = τr²/2, the constant being a result of the integral.
That is, to me, the usual equation is more properly A = 2πr²/2, the two 2s being different in their origins, and we just usually use & memorize the simplified form.
- hinkley 2y agoUnfortunately the ancients didn't invent calculus. Pi had been in use a long time when Liebniz and Newton came along.
- deathanatos 2y agoAnother way to look at that would have been visible to non-calculus bearing ancients: A = πr² C = πD … why do we arbitrarily use r in one equation, and D in the other? (… because we're using the wrong constant, and it bugs us, and we're sweeping that under the mathematical rug.)