"It has come to my attention that various and sundry folk have done far better approximations of the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter than had been possible with my excellent 96-sided regular polygon method.
"Î¼Ï€ÏÎ¬Î²Î¿," I say (or would if this calculating engine of yours could properly handle "Unicode"). It pleases me to no end to know that the great work has continued, lo these many years since that obstreperous Italic fellow with the red cloak so rudely interrupted my research.
However, with an eternity in Hades on my hands, I have endeavored to stay busy by continuing to produce more accurate approximations. (That rake Sisyphus tells me it's a waste of time, but he is not one to talk in that regard.)
What follows is the closest approximation I have made in my posthumous calcutatory diversions. "Pi," to use your modern shorthand, is about...
bob_super wrote:So ... you want to replace Pi with Tau so that it adds "+0" to the previous equation?
No, I want to replace it with Tau because it preserves the meaning of the relationship better than the standard form. kinda the same as I like the circular area formula better with tau:A=1/2 τr^2because the form helps me remember how to compute areas of sectors with arbitrary angles.
bob_super wrote:I'd rather keep the "-1", which is not a minor concept, and throw in a free "+0" in there to satisfy your fetishist need for one more important number.
Apparently you're in the minority there, most pi fanatics prefer the version without the minus sign; save your "fetish" accusations for them.
Honstly, the aesthetic choices made by mathematicians baffle me. For me, elegant means simple, useful, and instructive. I find that beautiful. I'm OK with you not agreeing, but there's no need for abusive language.