3 ms·

I think most of your arguments are valid, especially about the choice of glyph, tau is already used a ton. However, I think there is something to be said for th

by DSMan195276 12y ago

I think most of your arguments are valid, especially about the choice of glyph, tau is already used a ton. However, I think there is something to be said for the fact that, by virtue of being the ratio of C/R, there are exactly tau radians in a circle. This really does simplify the math, and gives more meaning to the constants on tau vs. pi. There's more meaning from '3 * tau / 4' vs. '3 * pi / 2' because the constant tells you that you have exactly '3 / 4' of a circle. With pi, this is less obvious because there are '2 * pi' radians in a circle, but the 2 frequently disappears (like in my example), which leaves you with '3 / 2 of a half a circle', which isn't obvious how much that actually is. pi definitely does have it's uses when you're talking about the diameter, but when you're talking about something like radians, it makes more sense to use the ratio of circumference to radius rather then circumference to diameter. If we were using diameterians then it would make sense to use pi, since there would be exactly pi diameterians in a circle. Having them mismatched like we do creates a mess.

tomp 12y ago
> which leaves you with '3 / 2 of a half a circle', which isn't obvious how much that actually is I like pi. I think it's quite obvious too, but maybe you need to stop thinking about circles and start thinking about planes or lines instead. Pi is simple, straight line, or equivalently the whole half-plane above the x axis. Pi/2 is half the turning needed to get back to the straight line, i.e. right square. And so on...
- DSMan195276 12y ago
  I get what you're saying, but you can say the exact same thing using tau and it's simpler: Tau is a simple, straight line, and stretches the entire length of a circle, starting from the x-axis in the positive x direction, and ending at the x-axis from the negative x direction. So Tau / 2 is the amount of turning needed to go half-way around the circle. Tau / 4 is the amount of turning needed to go a forth of the way around the circle, IE. a right square. Pi might seem easier or obvious to you because you've already been dealing with it for years, but it still creates a situation that is more complex then it needs to be. Tau creates a simpler unit-circle, because Tau uses the radius, and we're talking about radians. Using something that's calculated using the diameter, when you're talking about a unit that's measured in radius's is asking for a mess.

tomp 12y ago

> which leaves you with '3 / 2 of a half a circle', which isn't obvious how much that actually is I like pi. I think it's quite obvious too, but maybe you need to stop thinking about circles and start thinking about planes or lines instead. Pi is simple, straight line, or equivalently the whole half-plane above the x axis. Pi/2 is half the turning needed to get back to the straight line, i.e. right square. And so on...

DSMan195276 12y ago
I get what you're saying, but you can say the exact same thing using tau and it's simpler: Tau is a simple, straight line, and stretches the entire length of a circle, starting from the x-axis in the positive x direction, and ending at the x-axis from the negative x direction. So Tau / 2 is the amount of turning needed to go half-way around the circle. Tau / 4 is the amount of turning needed to go a forth of the way around the circle, IE. a right square. Pi might seem easier or obvious to you because you've already been dealing with it for years, but it still creates a situation that is more complex then it needs to be. Tau creates a simpler unit-circle, because Tau uses the radius, and we're talking about radians. Using something that's calculated using the diameter, when you're talking about a unit that's measured in radius's is asking for a mess.