Talk:Tau (proposed mathematical constant)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Tau Manifesto Compliant

http://theoremoftheday.org/Annex/taumanifesto.html

John W. Nicholson (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I've found that using the three search terms tau pi circle helps find links while weeding out all the web pages about college fraternities. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Mathematical_beauty

With the idea of tau, the page Mathematical_beauty is changed. Note that it has Euler's identity with pi. John W. Nicholson (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Rotation Identity Quality

I just added this term, Rotation Identity Quality. It may have a different name for real. No real source. But the point is real. John W. Nicholson (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:CIRCULAR, I have to revert you. Feel free to readd it if you can find a reliable source. If you cannot find one, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia anyway. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with the circular argument, I don't think it that same way (pun intended). The closest thing I have found was on Tau Manifesto section 2.3 "A rotation by one turn is 1.", but it deals with Euler’s identity and does not mention any point on the curve. John W. Nicholson (talk) 05:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

links

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927944.300-pis-nemesis-mathematics-is-better-with-tau.html

• • • http://www.maa.org/Mathhorizons/apr12_aftermath.pdf

http://horizonsaftermath.blogspot.com/2012/04/my-conversion-to-tauism.html

• • • http://www.math.columbia.edu/~thaddeus/theses/2011/pugin.pdf

http://littlestorping.co.uk/2011/06/28/war-on-tau/ John W. Nicholson (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, these are really quite helpful. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

http://www.ethanmath.com/Ethan_Math/Library_Fundraiser.html John W. Nicholson (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Bracketed Names

If these names get links Bob Palais, Michael Hartl, and Peter Harremoës add brackets back to page. John W. Nicholson (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Basel Problem

I disagreed with your changing the categorization of the basel problem, and so reverted you. Perhaps this is not the best example to include in the page, and we should replace/remove it? Tazerdadog (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the reader needs to see a categorization of formulas like the basel problem, where there is little difference in the formulas. I don't think this category fully supports pi except by default. I know there are other which should be placed in this category, but I would need to trip over them to find them again. I would suggest placing it back and add to it, but with better wording than I did. It shows some clarity and understanding of the weight of the balance of the two other groups. John W. Nicholson (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that there is an extra factor of 1/4 in the tau version. Since we disagree, maybe we should take this example out altogether? It is also not (according to the sources I found anyway) used as a criticism of tau by pi-proponents. Besides, pi has one more example than tau as it is, and the principle of equal time I am trying to follow applies both ways.Tazerdadog (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That factor of 1/4 along with 1/6 makes a rational 1/24. This does not complicate the equation in the sense of beauty. Beauty, which is one strong point of tau is shown to be weak by this third group (because of the default stand). Your sense of balance is another reason for this third grouping. I added a new comment on "Rotation Identity Quality" it might just needs to be called turn identity or something (others need to decide on this). This makes tau not balanced with pi. Yet, with both together, I see balance. Also remember section 5 of the Tau Manifesto, I am still thinking about how to comment and add it (with balance). John W. Nicholson (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps Girard's theorem should replace Basel Problem, and a link to http://theoremoftheday.org/Annex/taumanifesto.html should be added? (# 15 below) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazerdadog (talk • contribs) 23:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, when I added the separate grouping I was intending on adding things like Girard's theorem. But, I was also wanting to balance it with "Rotation Identity Quality" I know that the Circular Argument stands in the way of that as of now, but I have been pointing it out and asking if there is a good cite out there. Can it be done with a simple proof and then cite the first known use as the prior cited page? John W. Nicholson (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

What might need to happen is a separate page with the 'complete list of each equation better or worst for tau' and a comments of why. I know that the 1/2 which is added in 'area' has been talked about more than first looks. What I mean is: the 1/2 was hidden by pi until we use tau. When you look at area of a triangle (as the original proof by Archimedes shows with base C and height r), integration, and derivative of the area you see the 1/2 comes in handy. So, there is beauty here. John W. Nicholson (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's not bite off more than we can chew. First things first, let's get this article into articlespace and stable. I have again asked at Talk:pi if anyone objects. Then we can try to improve the article/topic. Tazerdadog (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say bebold, andtry to add it again, but don't take it personally if I revert it again. I don't see a great source, but an ok one with a good explanation should suffice if it can be done. Keep WP:NPOV firmly in mind as well. Tazerdadog (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Question

What on earth is the ratio is mathematically arbitrary by its transcendental nature supposed to mean?—Emil J. 18:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I read Imaginatorium comments at 06:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC) in Talk:Pi and thought I would try to state something here with it. I know am not the best writer, so feel free to word this better. John W. Nicholson (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to jump in here: I can't see where the quote above is supposed to come from, but it looks like nonsense to me. The mathematical term "transcendental" has nothing to do with wishy-washy new-age waffle, it is totally down-to-earth. A number is "transcendental" if it is not the root of a polynomial with integer coefficients. The "arbitrary" I was referring to is the arbitrariness in using a name for p/d, as opposed to a name for p/r, or a name for the hexagonal comma (a term I've just invented, which is the ratio of a circular arc radius 1 from one corner of an equilateral triangle to another over the radius, 1; so it's equal to pi/3). The choice of naming pi or tau is mathematically arbitrary, but not historically arbitrary. Imaginatorium (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I read that too, and assumed that you knww what yoyu were takling about, As I am only in basic university-level math. I will rephrase that now.Tazerdadog (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Ugh. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It’s much better without the “transcendental nature”, but the ratio is not at all “mathematically arbitrary”. Quite the opposite, the ratio is an important constant whose value is uniquely determined by fundamental mathematical principles. I’ll give it a go.—Emil J. 11:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

EmilJ, If you look at the page Talk:Pi you will see why the number pi is arbitrary. Even when Euler wrote about it he stated "for the sake of brevity we will write this number as π; thus π is equal to half the circumference of a circle of radius 1" it was clear that it was most likely a irrational number. While I am not sure Euler knew about transcendental numbers. Clearly choosing "half" over the whole 𝜏 or any other faction was arbitrary in the sense of mathematics. Yes, I know that the diameter was commonly use to measure a physical circle, but that is getting away from the issue. And that issue is what makes pi more or less fundamental than tau. I would say that the "Rotation Identity Quality" makes 𝜏 more fundamental. It "can be stated as the following:

Start at any point on a unit circle, and rotate by any value which is not an integer multiple of τ, which includes π, the starting value is not returned. However, rotating by τ or a integer multiple does return to the starting value."

So, unless someone can find a better reason than this and section 5 of the Tau Manifesto to call 𝜏 less fundamental, I am sticking with tau and calling pi an arbitrary number. However, you might read this and have a better name for this observation, so feel free to state what you think needs to be said. John W. Nicholson (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No, pi is most definitely not an arbitrary number. If it were arbitrary, you could decide to define it to be 3748.458298, and everything would work just the same. That is a complete nonsense, the value of the ratio of circumference to diameter is not for anyone to decide. What is arbitrary is the decision to write formulas and other results using this constant, instead of writing them with another constant, such as tau. Nothing in the paragraph you have written addresses the point, which is that you are insisting on using the wrong terminology. I don’t get the request in your last sentence, as what I think needs to be said is already in the article.—Emil J. 20:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we are agreeing here: "What is arbitrary is the decision to write formulas and other results using this constant, instead of writing them with another constant, such as tau. Nothing in the paragraph you have written addresses the point," However this part it different: " which is that you are insisting on using the wrong terminology." I am not really insisting on wrong terminology, it seems like that because I am unclear on writing on the same arbitrary "decision to write formulas" with one number over another. With what you are saying, how do you propose writing it so that it is WP:NPOV? The point I was trying making with my statement as to what you are calling "terminology" was the mathematical 'tie-down' to one constant. By 'tie-down' I mean what removes the "arbitrariness" as you stated?. I have not see a 'tie-down' for pi like the "Rotation Identity Quality" nor have I see how 2D area ratio is more important than a length ratio. John W. Nicholson (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here is my $0.02. Pi is not arbitrary, it is exactly C/D, aka 3.14159265358979...and so on. Tau is not arbitrary, it is exactly C/R, aka 6.283...and so on. The choice between the numbers is arbitrary. Either pi or tau can express the concepts perfectly well in every mathematical context. The real question is what looks nicer, and which is easiest to teach.Tazerdadog (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

"You cannot rotate by Pi and get the same returned. Tau does have this Rotation Identity Quality." Talk:Pi#The_Case_for_Tau_.28latest.29 I will go on and say any none integer multiple of tau fails and any multiple of tau succeeds. Tau is the smallest none zero rotation or turn that does this. This is what removes the "choice between the numbers is arbitrary" bit and it is what make tau more fundamental than pi. I would call it the turn identity if I thought of it. It is easy to prove too. Because any pair of terminal angles which are also coterminal angles differ by n𝜏 where n is a non-zero integer. 𝜏 is just the smallest positive value. John W. Nicholson (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

List of every reference I can find in a wikipedia-ready format.

more or less done, I would have to really dig to find more. I am going to bring this up on Talk:Pi, and go to bed.Tazerdadog (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Currently not in the article

(If you can find a place in the article for one of these that makes sense, please put it in. If you can't, please don't.)

A few more not listed above, copied from User:Joseph_Lindenberg/sandbox

(All have now moved into the main list)

Feel free to move these into the main list and delete this section if you want. I couldn't tell if there was a reason for the order in the main list, so I didn't want to mess it up. I try to keep my list in alphabetical order to make it easy to avoid duplicates. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no particular order beyond in the article/out of the article. I will move them to the list soon, but if you want to just do it, please do as I'm going to be tied up with school for the next week or so, and will have extremely limited time for wikipedia.Tazerdadog (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The argument for tau

Has third substantiated opinion which is notable for the "The argument for tau" section. You can not have balance in this part, it must lean just as the next section on π must also lean against it. I would suggest that the pi people should write better reasons to their argument. Note, they are already trying tear down the other references in this section as not WP:notable or WP:OR. So, I would highly suggest a swap of statements, if anything must be taken away. Feel free to change the statement, but keep the reference. John W. Nicholson (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

students understanding

I thought this was interesting:

http://math.unipa.it/~grim/Quad18_Kupkova_08.pdf

"In fact, if they really want to follow the curriculum and at the same time support students understanding, the only manageable way of using radians is the π = 180° equivalence. So, in students understanding, radians have nothing to do with the length of the arc on the unit circle."

I do not see how this fits in to this article, because it does not mention tau, but it shows what tau would fix if taught earlier. Like this:

Student: What is a degree?

Teacher: 1/360 of a turn. A turn can be though of as both a number and and angle.

John W. Nicholson (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I would help, but...

I have very little subject knowledge to provide an informed opinion and it looks like you already have some help from someone a little more mathematically inclined than myself. I'll leave it to them for suggestions, but if you need any help not related to actually content (e.g., references, templates, wiki-markup, etc.) I can try to help where I can, but it looks like you've got it under control. Go Phightins! 03:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Tazer, you posted on my talk a while ago about needing help. I did try to contact an editor, but he seems to have since retired. It seems you have a good deal of help here, but if you need any help, check out WP:WPMATH. Go Phightins! 22:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Consider moving all the reference info to the end of the article

Take a look at how we did the references in the last version of the tau article. You'll have to click Edit to see the source, to see what I mean. (Don't click Save!) It made editing easier by not cluttering up the text. Having all the references together in one neat list is helpful too. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If you'd like to do that, go ahead. I just don't have the time right now. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hyperspheres

I would point out the argument in section 5.1 of the Tau Manifesto "Surface area and volume of a hypersphere".

I am trying to give tau and pi equal "time". I would love to see how you would phrase it, so if you want to write it up feel free to add it. Just note that I might take it out again.Tazerdadog (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Needs something that is pointing to this too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-sphere#Other_relations

The video here may be helpful: https://asunews.asu.edu/20110629_video_PivsTau — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddwarf2956 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

But this would be a major change in the habits of most scientists and engineers.

@ D.Lazard: Because I think having the time of lunch changed by 2 hours is more of "a major change" in someones habit, while tau is not. I was thinking of changing this from: "But this would be a major change in the habits of most scientists and engineers." To something like: "However, this would disrupt some of the routine tasks of most scientists and engineers by .... " The '...' needs to be stated in a clear way. How and what routine tasks is being disrupted? As I try to wrap my mind around this disruption, I am not sure there is any. I mean pi is still pi. 2pi is still 2pi, but it also has an alias glyph of tau. So, how is this disruptive? I mean the worse disruption I have seen for tau is here on Wikipedia and I have yet to understand why this is happening. John W. Nicholson (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps replace major with significant?Tazerdadog (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a source which talks about this disruption better. I don't see how making something easier to teach would make it harder to use? So, clearly, changing 'major' with 'significant' is minor to this question. By the way, I do like the idea of adding it, if it does have merit that I have not thought of (which to me is a low bar). For example, I know that programmers could write an alias to two_pi which takes a small amount of time. John W. Nicholson (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

D.Lazard is talking about adults who've already learned pi and been accustomed to using it over decades, I think. Metric may be a better measurement system and just as easy to learn from childhood. But if you've spent all your life thinking in feet, gallons, and pounds, then simply switching to thinking in meters, liters, and kilograms is hard. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Of course, this is more like switching from pints to quarts, or from quarts to gallons, or from feet to yards. Not as extreme a change, but it's still a change. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone translate this video and provide a transcript?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6CRN6k9wQ8

I think it's news coverage of some Indian kid (he looks high school age) who won an academic award for his presentation on tau. There must be more to it though for a trophy and news coverage. Not really sure, so I thought I'd ask for help. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• I wish I still knew some of my former neighbors who were from India. I can only tell that it about tau by the English title and name dropping.

While watching I noticed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeunWSrg_0w

This one is in Spanish. I wonder how many languages it has been translated into? Just because of the act of translation requires some level of thought of "Is this worth it?" indicates that tau is notable and spreading. John W. Nicholson (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

A video of a lecture is not a source that establishes notability, particularly for a topic in mathematics. Tau may indeed by gaining in popularity, but that doesn't on its own justify having a separate article. We can't predict the future - it could be that in a few years τ will have enough secondary sources for an article, but if we have to look to videos on youtube to find sources right now, it's a sign that the time is not yet. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This article is not intended to be a "topic in mathematics", because it is fringe science article. While subject matter is a "topic in mathematics", it will remain a fringe article until a good peer reviewed source is published. Therefore, the standard of WP:fringe holds, and not the higher standard of Wikipedia:Mathematics, and so, the source from a reputable video, opinion, or even a newspaper is fine. John W. Nicholson (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Fringe science means things like telepathy. Tau is not a scientific theory of any sort, and it does not present any different understanding of any mathematical topic. It isn't a "fringe theory" in either the plain meaning of the term or the sense of WP:FRINGE. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok Carl, if tau is not a fringe article, then what kind of article should it be called? I know that it is not mainstream science as you can see with the reaction above with the RfC. It is notable in the sense of 'pop culture' and things being taped, wrote, and fight over. But, it is also based on the mathematics with coterminal angles which is dealing with geometry, a science under mathematics. John W. Nicholson (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Tau is certainly "mainstream" mathematics - any formula that uses π can be directly translated into one using τ, and vice versa, and the resulting theories will be the same. This is different than fringe science, which predicts things that the mainstream theories do not predict, and vice versa (e.g. telepathy, ghosts). Tau is just a notational variation which a few mathematicians have proposed. It's even debatable whether it's "pop culture" because mathematicians are already a tiny part of society, and only a tiny number of mathematicians care about it (slow news day stories about "those crazy mathematicians" are not evidence of mass interest). How "popular" is the interest in mathematical notation? Overall, the due weight of τ is just exceptionally low at this time. Perhaps in five years it will be of more interest, but it is too soon to tell. — Carl (CBM · talk)

What on Earth gave John W. Nicholson the idea that if it is not a fringe article it needs some exotic new categorisation? (Hint! What is the opposite of "not in"?) Or that if it is not fringe it then cannot deal with fringe aspects of a particular topic? We have plenty of non-fringe articles dealing with fringe topics. Who would demand that we should delete articles on water memory for example, just because water memory was classical fringe stuff? And as for the foregoing controversy on this talk page, it is no advertisement for anyone involved, but that doesn't mean much. The article on Tau deals straightforwardly with a public argument concerning a point of mathematical notation. The idea that in some contexts we might use Tau instead of 2pi strikes me as trivial (from primary school onwards, I never had any difficulty with the idea that one might, just might want to use 2pi in some contexts, and vanilla pi elsewhere (gee whiz!) but that has nothing to do with this topic, because that is not the line this article pushes.) The 2pi theme itself, though possibly trivial, is not fringe because it does not rely on anything unmathematical or untrue. We might indeed have a fringe movement (or possibly flap) based on arguments that civilisation will grind all the faster to a halt if we do not teach Tau rather than 2pi because most kids won't understand it and those budding geeks that do understand (curse them!) will be disadvantaged, but for one thing, that also is not pushed in this article and if ever it is were it could be quenched with standard procedures of demanding citations etc. To my mind it would not be helpful to people interested in pi and uninterested in tau, to push it under their noses, so I reckon it is best to keep tau in its own article. Because some people (not just one or two, please note) are interested in it, the stand-alone article is justified and the jihad against it is wrong-minded over-reaction. JonRichfield (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Carl, Take a look at the argument in section 5.1 of the Manifesto "Surface area and volume of a hypersphere" and see if "any formula that uses π can be directly translated into one using τ, and vice versa, and the resulting theories will be the same." The reason I ask you to do this is because there is a implied 2 dropped with π which makes the "directly translated" impossible. Yes, you might think this factor is trivial, but observe what it does to the results and observe how coterminal angles and reference angles are not the same in part because of this factor. Even with these statements, and reading what you have to say, I still have not seen what to call τ other than 'fringe' mainly because of WP:FRINGE/PS "4. Alternative theoretical formulations" and because of the lack of peer review. I might even agree that tau is "mainstream" mathematics if you can show that tau is taught in "mainstream" mathematics and not a fringe few. John W. Nicholson (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't answer for what Carl thinks is trivial, but I reckon that it is a reeeally limited mathematical capacity that jibs at making allowance for the alteration of a numeric constant in an expression. Are you suggesting that the CGS system gives us different physics from the MKS? Or that working in percentages yields different maths or stats from working in decimal (or indeed working in positional notation to radix -10, or 10^0.5, or 1/8, or +16)? What do you count as "direct translation"? A rubber stamp? JonRichfield (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

"Are you suggesting that the CGS system gives us different physics from the MKS?" No. "A rubber stamp?" Not sure I know what you mean here. But, it is not the notation which I find as the issue other than with 2*pi being a number which allows 2*pi/2 to become pi which is a loss of information, while with tau/2, this loss does not happen. Think of it like the difference between a count of the number of semicircles and whole circles when you are talking about radians. Which is more important and will not lose or add information the number of semicircles or whole circles when you are converting 60 cycles per second or 60 Hertz to radians per second? With tau it is 60 𝜏 radians with pi it is 120 π radians. John W. Nicholson (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• THIS. This is what drove me nuts about it. Always having doubled frequency values running around in equations.

Simple 687 Hertz sine wave? sin 1374πt.

Fourier series? (*)sin 2πƒt + (*)sin 4πƒt + (*)sin 6πƒt + (*)sin 8πƒt + ...

Which term is the 4th harmonic? (*)sin 8πƒt of course!

Which terms are the even harmonics? Arrrghhhh!!! --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

What is funny, strange, and weird about it is why it did not get change to something like tau in the first place (by Euler). There does not seem to be any reason not to have changed it other than tradition. John W. Nicholson (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I can provide a (very rough) translation of the spanish video text if anyone wants it. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

No thanks. I'm sure it's a good video, but what really piqued my interest about the Indian video was it looks like India's equivalent of the US Department of Education, NCERT, gave the award. The video's description says, "NCERT liked Prakhar's claim". It has the look of someone winning a big student science fair, like Intel/Westinghouse, given the big trophy and TV station interviewing him and his parents. But obviously, just giving a presentation about tau wouldn't merit such an award. So what exactly did he do? --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Here we go. It's entry number 161: www.ncert.nic.in/announcements/oth_announcements/pdf_files/Selected_Exhibits1.pdf --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

You can also use your browsers 'search in page' option to find "tau". John W. Nicholson (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It's the 2012 Jawaharlal Nehru National Science, Mathematics and Environment Exhibition for Children (abbreviated JNNSMEE). Supposedly pretty prestigious. Can I assume we can't use a national high school science competition as an academic source? Oh well, it's still another promising sign for tau. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I know there is a level of 'Are you kidding me?' going on here. So, I will say, no. But, as for a fringe article maybe. It needs to have some type of review out side the exhibit by a notable source if it has anything useful. While stating this as the article on the whole, as the article as an example of fringe notable sure. I mean, it shows that tau is now known about in India. John W. Nicholson (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• From my admittedlly sketchy familiarity with Euler, I imagine that the unimaginative Swiss never thought anyone could need help in including a factor of 2 into a term. My own imagination is ripping at the seams as I type, and I am not Swiss. And what loss of information did you have in mind in your example? I cannot imagine one in which anyone who could not be aware of the procedure and its application would give a damn about successive doubling and halving, or why hiding it in Tau is more conservative of information. It still looks to me like two ways of obtaining exactly the same result, in which the details of the calculation are hardly of interest, which is why I keep dismissing it as a triviality. Do please correct my delusion, or if that is too much like hard work, tell me what it does say to the innumerate that it does not say to those who sniff at the whole fiasco. Meanwhile I will try to comfort myself with the thought that the two of you might be joking, but that effort is a strain in its own right, because I always thought a joke was supposed to be funny. As for CGS/MKS, with its conversion factors of powers of hundreds and thousands, how can you swallow that camel and strain at the gnat of pi? Any sane physicist knows that the system our creator intended us to use was the QDYC, within which no conversion is necessary, as opposed to our current SI nonsense. And my imagination jibs stubbornly at the effort of encompassing why you think any of that is relevant to the article, which is not about endorsement of either pi or tau, though of course, QDYC is different. Hmm, a new article on QDYC maybe...? JonRichfield (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Successive doubling and halving is (wasted) extra mental overhead. Like I said though, for me the most annoying issue was how it obscured frequencies written in equations. Frequencies can be rather precise numbers with quite a few significant digits, so it's not so easy to do that doubling and halving without interrupting your thinking about the more important stuff. See sin 215.8∙10⁶πt in an equation and it doesn't mean much. See sin 107.9∙10⁶𝜏t and you immediately recognize 107.9 MHz as an FM radio station frequency that your signal would be interfering with. More to the point, the difficulty is TOTALLY UNNECESSARY, just the result of a mistake of history. A one-time switch to the proper number, and the world would forever after be rid of these difficulties. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Quite apart from the fact that EVERY numerical mathematical constant appears in an indefinite number of expressions (such as the area of a square and the volume of a pyramid in the case of pi) including expressions in which the number is multiplied, divided, added, logged, you name it, and that you cannot validly demonstrate that there are more examples of doubling pi than of halving tau in maths, there is the fact that it doesn't matter whether your preoccupation with a fictitious numerical convenience is justified or not. ONE MORE TIME: What did you think this article is about? If you so much as BREATHE the thought of ADVOCACY, DOOOINGGGG! No cigar! Please work that one out again; this is getting tedious. JonRichfield (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

JonRichfield and anyone else who can't imagine why anyone "would give a damn about successive doubling and halving, or why hiding it in Tau is more conservative of information" should spend a few minutes with the article on mathematical beauty. Working mathematicians do in fact spend lots of thought on exactly this type of question. — ChalkboardCowboy^[T] 04:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who can imagine that mathematical beauty resides in whether there is one constant in one mathematical expression, or alternatively another (small integer) constant in another expression, should stick to BA art subject matter. Anyone who thinks that hiding the constant in Tau conserves information, whereas the use of pi does not, and fancies himself as a working mathematician, should be happy to explain why or how, and also explain which "lots of thought" went into that question. Sounds to me more as though some of the works are broken, especially in some of the great minds who not only can see the significance of tau, but also what significance there is to this article. Once more wearily: "...poor little lambs that have lost our way; advocacy is not our job, baaa baaa baaa!" What is so complicated about the article having nothing to do with whether pi should be replaced by three or six, or even tau; it deals only with what the controversy is about? For minds that cannot handle that distinction, it is not surprising that a lot of halving or doubling would terrify them. JonRichfield (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

So, Jon what you are arguing is that half is an integer, and therefore beautiful? I mean pi is the as Euler define the constant pi with: "for the sake of brevity we will write this number as π; thus π is equal to half the circumference of a circle of radius 1." Clearly, this is (C/2)/r and there are no reasons other than history to be putting that "half" into this constant. It is mathematically ugly by its original definition which includes "half" for no reason. It can be viewed as that it adds information which is not needed (as with the conversion of Hertz to rad/s), or removes information when it is needed (as in area of a circle with integration of the circumference). It is not advocacy, it is a movement that started away from Wikipedia and continuing to grow. If you have any one to blame, it is Euler for only using half 𝜏 and calling it π when he should have used a whole circumference to radius. All it should have taken was him thinking about coterminal angles or whole turns and why they are important, but he didn't. By the way, I have no problem with calling pi for what it is worth 'half tau', but there seem to be others which can not do this and "cannot handle that distinction". So, please stop this silly game of which is better. John W. Nicholson (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Too bad the Pi article is move-protected. Renaming it "Semitau" would've made a great April Fools Day prank. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

A wise American defined the April Fool as the March Fool with another month added to his folly. In case you are contemplating more foolishness in this connection, read what John said about stopping! But if you want to write an article on Semitau yourself, don't let me stop you. ;-) JonRichfield (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• I should stop the silly game? I didn't start it! I am the one who has been wearily requesting people to drop the nonsensical harping on a point of personal, non-functional perception of an arbitrary notation, not because one option is better than the other, which in general neither is except in special contexts, but because to urge one notation rather than the other not only is not the point of the article, but if it were, would disqualify the article from WP. The article deals with the controversy and the thinking behind the opposing sides; which side is right is beside the point. (Strictly speaking, both sides are dead wrong, but that is another matter.) Sheesh man, do you want it spelt out or translated into Transatlantic Aramaic or something? JonRichfield (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Dr. James Grime endorses tau

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IOaoK2MMoI#t=34m40s

If you don't know who Dr. James Grime is. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

At best, only evidence for "in popular culture". Perhaps, still, to tauism (2π) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting using the video as a source, but are you saying you don't respect James Grime's credentials? --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly. It seems he's a popularizer of mathematics, not primarily a working mathematician. Although popularization is a more difficult task, it doesn't mean that τ is being used in mathematics. In any case, I can't find π or τ in any of his published papers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You wrote that his endorsement was at best only evidence for "in popular culture", so I just wanted to make sure you were aware he has a PhD in math and is a faculty member at Cambridge. Apparently you are. But you're saying the problem is that right now, he is not technically working as a mathematician, and that when he was, he didn't use tau. (By the way, it appears he's a recent convert to tau, since he said it was Dr. Phil Moriarty's Numberphile video that converted him, and that video only came out 4 months ago.) --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You neither make it clear what you are claiming that this entails, nor why it matters in context. Dr Wossname might be the holder of a baker's dozen of Fields medals, but that would not affect the principle that however great an authority he might be in such a matter, his opinion cannot be final unless it is consistent with patent and cogent reasoning, not the whimperings of people who are not comfortable working with even-numbered trig terms or the like, or who prefer identities such as (f/2)^(i*(tau/2))=0.5*2 to e^(i*pi)-0=0-1. It also doesn't mend the fact that the article is about the controversy, not about whether tau or pi is preferable, or when. JonRichfield (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Any article should be about the controversy, suggesting, of course, tauism as the name, rather than tau. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

So, Arthur, you do really in oppose the article existing except by name and content? The original question left the name open, and the content can be edited. So, what is your real hold up? Just do not like writing or editing, but love to comment on others writing? While I also disagree with Jon on some of his points, we are on agreement that this article should exist. The content may need to be worked out, and the name made into what most are happy with. But, is there really something so bad that there is no reason to have an article about the 'symbol' = 2π and the controversy this 'symbol' is causing? Should we be putting the full content of this controversy in the pi article? I feel that Jon's point about controversy, not about whether tau or pi is preferable needs to be addressed in the article. But it needs to also find a way of stating it from both perspectives. I, and some others, view π as half the circle constant because of what is defined as radius, circle, coterminal angles, and radians. Others view that π is the circle constant and that 𝜏 is really just 2π and not that important. Yet, still another group views both are wrong and want to point out other fractions of tau (like 𝜏/4, 𝜏/6, and even 1/𝜏) which would work better by there point of view yet give no real good mathematical reason why it would be better. I have seen while researching for this article at the most 1 fringe article at most which would support their claim. So, I claim this last group can be dismissed with because it is not even fringe notable. While both pi and tau have notable reasons for having different articles. John W. Nicholson (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

This page is for discussing whether and how to write a certain article. Personal comments about other editors such as Just do not like writing or editing, but love to comment on others writing? above are not appropriate. Deltahedron (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

So, are you saying that asking questions is not good and encouragement for writing on the article is not wanted? John W. Nicholson (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I am saying that Wikipedia:Civility policy mandates that "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect" and that Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines recommend that "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor." I am not saying anything at all like the opinion you are mistakenly attributing to me. Now let us all return to discussing if and how to write an article. Deltahedron (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, to quote you "I am not saying anything at all like the opinion you are mistakenly attributing to me." goes for me too. As to the article, it seems like the "how to write" is more to the point than if. I have put a few words into the article, I sure hope others will take advantage of adding their 'two cents' as to make it read better. John W. Nicholson (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it wrong to say that tauism might be notable, when tau is clearly not notable? The article should be on the controversy, tau (2π) should redirect to a section of pi, which should have a {{see also|tauism (2π)}}. The article tauism should be on the controversy, possibly including some of the arguments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a reasonable way to meet the demands of NPOV. Cover the movement but not the constant, since there are sources that the movement itself exists and is possibly notable, but there are no good sources about the constant. I don't know about the title "tauism", though. This seems to be a clear neologism. A better alternative would be a purely descriptive title, such as "Movement to replace the mathematical constant π by 2π". Various redirects could then be handled appropriately. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I could accept any of these proposals as an acceptable compromise. I might quibble about where some of the proposed redirects are targeted, but this is a minor point for another discussion. I would be willing to try to write the tauism article, but if you would prefer, be my guest. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

http://thebruns.ca/opinion/an-open-letter-to-pi/ They just keep coming. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Even better, the photo traces to a Dr. Bruce Torrence, mathematics professor and department chair at Randolph-Macon College. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 08:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not even Pi Day yet, and the blog posts about tau have already started to appear. I won't bore you with most of them, but I had to post these two student-made videos. Warning: You will never get these 20 minutes of your life back. They're that bad.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnEJN2VOWkI (Talk about tau starts 3 minutes in)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2lFfH6Rknk (Steven Spielberg hung himself after watching the first 5 minutes of this video. After that, it's fine, but it was too late for Steven.)
--Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Came across another mention of tau, in the (printed) book Games and Mathematics by David Wells:
books.google.com/books?id=Su-k9Kld5ooC&pg=PA99&dq=tau+6.28&hl=en --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)