All Products và Services

Technologies

plovdent.com Language

Revolutionary knowledge-based programming language.

Bạn đang xem: 2 pi or not 2 pi?

The preeminent environment for any technical workflows.

plovdent.com Data FrameworkSemantic framework for real-world data.

plovdent.com Cloud

Central infrastructure for plovdent.com"s cloud products và services.

plovdent.com EngineSoftware engine implementing the plovdent.com Language.

plovdent.com Universal Deployment SystemInstant deployment across cloud, desktop, mobile, and more.

plovdent.com Science

Technology-enabling science of the computational universe.

plovdent.com Natural Language Understanding SystemKnowledge-based, broadly deployed natural language.

plovdent.com KnowledgebaseCurated computable knowledge powering plovdent.com|Alpha.

All Technologies

Solutions

Engineering, R&D Aerospace & Defense Chemical Engineering Control Systems Electrical Engineering Image Processing Industrial Engineering Mechanical Engineering Operations Research More... Education All Solutions for Education Finance, Statistics và Business Analysis Actuarial Sciences Bioinformatics Data Science Econometrics Financial Risk Management Statistics More... Software & Web Software Development Authoring & Publishing Interface Development website Development Education All Solutions for Education Trends Machine Learning Multiparadigm Data Science mạng internet of Things High-Performance Computing Hackathons Sciences Astronomy Biology Chemistry More... Software & Web Software Development Authoring & Publishing Interface Development web Development Sciences Astronomy Biology Chemistry More...

All Solutions

Learning & tư vấn

Learning plovdent.com Language Documentation Fast Introduction for Programmers plovdent.com U Videos và Screencasts plovdent.com Language Introductory Book Webinars và Training Summer Programs Books Need Help? support FAQ plovdent.com Community contact Support Premium support Paid Project support Technical Consulting

All Learning & tư vấn

Company

About Company Background plovdent.com plovdent.com Events tương tác Us Work with Us Careers at plovdent.com Internships Other plovdent.com Language Jobs Initiatives plovdent.com Foundation MathWorld Computer-Based Math A New Kind of Science plovdent.com giải pháp công nghệ for Hackathons Student Ambassador Program plovdent.com for Startups Demonstrations Project plovdent.com Innovator Awards plovdent.com + Raspberry Pi Summer Programs More...

All Company

tìm kiếm

News, Views & Insights

Browse by Topic

Related Topics

Related Posts

2 Pi or Not 2 Pi? June 28, năm ngoái

Some say that Tau Day is really the day lớn celebrate, & that τ(=2π) should be the most prominent constant, not π. It all started in 2001 with the famous opening line of a watershed essay by Bob Palais, a mathematician at the University of Utah:

“I know it will be called blasphemy by some, but I believe that π is wrong.”

Which has given rise in some circles khổng lồ the celebration of Tau Day—or, as many people say, the one day on which you are allowed khổng lồ eat two pies.

But is it true that τ is the better constant? In today’s world, it’s quite easy khổng lồ test, và the plovdent.com Language makes this task much simpler. (Indeed, Michael Trott’s recent plovdent.com post on dates in pi—itself inspired by Stephen plovdent.com’s Pi Day of the Century post—made much use of the plovdent.com Language.) I started by looking at 320,000 preprints from arXiv.org to see in practice how many formulas involve 2π rather than π alone, or other multiples of π.

Here is a WordCloud of some formulas containing 2π:

I found that only 18% of formulas considered involve 2π, suggesting that τ, after all, would not be a better choice.

But then why bởi vì τ supporters believe that we should switch to this new symbol? One reason is that using τ would make geometry & trigonometry easier to lớn understand và learn. After all, when we learn trigonometry, we don’t measure angles in degrees, but in radians, & there are 2π radians in a circle. This means that 1/4 of a circle corresponds to một nửa π radians, or π/2, & not a quarter of something! This counterintuitive madness would be resolved by the symbol τ, because every ratio of the circle would have a matching ratio of τ. For example, 1/4 would have an angle of τ/4.

I personally vày not have strong feelings against π, và to be honest, I don’t think students would learn trigonometry faster if they were to use τ. Think about the two most important trigonometric functions, sine and cosine. What’s most helpful lớn remember about them is that sin

= cos(2 π) = 1, & sin = cos(π) = –1. I have not only always preferred cosine simply because it’s easier to lớn remember (there are no fractions in π and 2 π), I’ve also always recognized that sine và cosine are different because one is nonzero on integer multiples of π & the other is nonzero on some fractions of it. By using τ instead, this symmetry would be lost, & we would be left with the equalities sin = cos(τ) = 1 & sin = cos = –1.Given these observations, it seems like choosing τ or π is a personal choice. That’s fair, but it’s not a rigorous approach for determining which constant is more useful.Even the approach I had at the beginning could lead khổng lồ the wrong conclusion. *The Tau Manifesto*, by Michael Hartl, gives some examples of places where 2π is most commonly used:

And indeed, all these formulas would be easier if we used τ. However, those are just six of the vast number of formulas that scientists use regularly, and as I mentioned before, not many mathematical expressions involve 2π. Nevertheless, it could happen that formulas not involving 2π would still be simpler if written in τ. For example, the expression 4 π² would simply become (τ²).

For this reason I looked back at the scientific articles lớn see whether using τ instead of 2π (and τ/2 instead of π) would make their formulas simpler. For instance, these are some that would be simpler in τ:

And these are some that would not:

Let me now try to explain what I mean by simpler by looking at an example: if I take the term containing π in the bottom-left formula of the *Tau Manifesto* equation table:

I can replace π with τ/2 using ReplaceAll, & I get:

Just by looking at these two expressions, you can see that the second one is simpler. It’s not just your intuition that tells you that; it’s clear that there are fewer symbols và constants in the replaced expression. We can look at their corresponding TreeForms lớn demonstrate it explicitly:

To get a numeric difference, we can look at the leaf counts (number of leaves on the trees), which correspond lớn the number of symbols and constants in the original formulas:

To see whether τ had an overall simplifying impact, I computed the complexity of each formula (defined as their leaf counts, as computed above) involving π that appeared in the articles when using π and τ. To be more precise, I first deleted all the formulas that were either equal khổng lồ π or 2 π. I felt it would have been unfair to lớn consider those as well because very often, if they appear by themselves, they do not stand for formulas. I then compared the number of times the τ formulas were better with the number of times they were not, and only 43% of the formulas whose complexity changed at all were actually better, meaning that using τ would make more than half of them look more complex. In other words, based on this comparison, we should keep using π. However, this is not the end of the story.

One observation I made is that if an expression gets either more or less complex, it’s likely khổng lồ have a leaf count that is less than 40. In fact, if you look at the percentage of formulas that are better when using π or τ and that have a number of leaves that is less than a fixed number, you get this picture:

where the *x* axis represents the upper bound on the number of leaves. This suggests that almost all formulas that become simpler have complexities less than 50, regardless of the symbol we choose.

A more relevant observation is that the situation changes drastically as the complexity of the formulas increases. Already by only considering formulas that have complexities greater than 3, like from earlier, only 48% are simpler in π against 52% that are simpler in τ. The graph below shows how the percentage of formulas that are better in either π or τ changes as a function of the complexity:

As you can see, as the number of leaves exceeds 48, the situation becomes chaotic. This is because only 0.4% of formulas have complexities greater than 50. There are not enough of these for us to deduce anything stable & reasonable about them, và the previous observation tells us that we should not really worry much about them anyway.

What this graph tells me is that in everyday life, & for anything more complex than fairly easy expressions like , we should indeed use τ for simplicity. But there is still something else I have not considered. What about different subjects?

It might be that formulas in physics look simpler in τ, but formulas in other subjects vì not. The initial tìm kiếm I made included articles from different subjects; however, I didn’t initially check whether the majority of π-containing formulas were from a limited subset of those subjects, or whether the ones that became simpler with τ were mostly from a limited subset. In fact, if I just restrict analysis lớn articles in mathematics, the situation becomes the following:

Basically, only 23% of formulas benefit from using τ, và those benefits come only when the complexity is fairly high. For instance, something of this sort:

would be an expression that would be simpler in τ, và you probably have not seen many of this type of expression. This suggests that either scientists in different subjects should use different conventions depending on their field-specific formulas, or that all scientific disciplines should switch lớn τ even though it does not really make sense for some of them to bởi so. After all, in a democracy, the majority wins, và it is impossible lớn accommodate everyone.

However, the above formula shows something else that I want to lớn point out. With τ, it becomes this:

And that is not much of an improvement: even though an expression could be easier in τ, the improvement might be so small that it is irrelevant. Consider for instance these two expressions together with their leaf counts:

And the corresponding expressions in τ:

The first formula is simpler in τ, but the leaf count is only 1/13 smaller than the original complexity, whereas the second expression is simpler in π & the replaced expression is 1/6 higher than the original complexity. In other words, the first case’s improvement was 1/13 & the second’s was -1/6 (the minus sign indicates negative improvement, as the expression in τ was worse). The mean of the vector

is –0.044, a negative number, which means that using τ in these two expressions makes the whole vector 0.044 worse, although π và τ each improved one formula.This vector approach is different from the one-count-per-equation one that I used earlier. It considers quantity of improvement instead of just an either/or binary, and it completely reverses the previous conclusions. I have computed these vectors for formulas having complexities bounded from below in the same way I did in the previous example. What I’ve seen is that the overall improvement in going from π khổng lồ τ, computed as the mean of these vectors, looks like this as the complexity increases:

where the *least* worsening, -0.04, is achieved at a complexity of 5. As you can see, the improvement stays below 0 the whole time, meaning that while more formulas may be shorter with τ (depending on the field), on average those length decreases are outweighed by the length increases in the formulas that are getting longer.

To make my point, at the end of this scientific investigation: I think we should be happy with our old friend π and not switch lớn τ.

I have two final observations. The first is that if we had already lived in a τ world, the conclusion would have been different, và we would have chosen khổng lồ stick with τ. If our expressions were already in τ & we were investigating whether switching lớn π would make them simpler, our vector-based graph would look lượt thích this:

That difference in behavior is because the vectors used to lớn construct the graphs depend on the original complexities, and so change when the original changes.

Xem thêm: Đáp Án Cuộc Thi Tìm Hiểu Về Biên Giới Và Bộ Đội Biên Phòng Năm 2018

This shows that for formulas that have a complexity greater than 2 (most of them do) và for which the complexity is not always greater than 18, the improvement in switching from τ lớn π would be negative again, suggesting that we should not accept the switch. Unfortunately for supporters of τ, we do not live in a τ world.

The second observation, which was brought lớn me by Michael Trott, is that 2/3 of the formulas shown in *The Tau Manifesto* (the green table at the beginning) don’t just have 2π in them, but the complex number 2π*i*. This suggests that maybe the question I was trying khổng lồ answer is not the correct one. A better one could be this: would it make sense khổng lồ have a new symbol τ for the complex number 2π*i*?

This new convention would require changing from π*i* to lớn τ/2 as well, but that doesn’t affect the complexity of π*i*. In general, formulas having a π*i* term inside would either become simpler or preserve their complexity. Khổng lồ give you an idea, here’s a word cloud of formulas that would become simpler:

Which, after substituting τ= 2π*i*, become these:

You could argue that the percentage of improved formulas may not be high enough, & changing from 2π*i* to lớn τ is not worth the effort. What evidence shows, however, is the opposite: of all formulas having a π*i* term, 75% would be simpler, and the remaining 25% would keep their original complexity—none would get worse. This is a strong point lớn make, & I am not in the position to bởi it, but I think the equality τ = 2π*i* looks more promising (and less historically disruptive) than τ = 2π.

Whatever your opinion on τ, I hope you have a lovely Tau Day. Please enjoy two pi(e)s today—imaginary or otherwise.