Talk:Pi

Template:Spoken Wikipedia In Progress

Convergence series needs citation

To whomever add the 3rd series ("Another that converges even more rapidly is the arcsine series" ) into the "Rate of Convergence" section. I don't think a 3rd series is needed to demonstrate the convergence principle: there are hundreds of series for pi; it takes only 2 to illustrate the point to lay readers. Why stop at 3? why not 4? 5? But, in any case, that 3rd series needs a citation or it should be removed. --Noleander (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this? I propose to remove the 3rd example, unless there is a good reason put forth as to why 3 is better than 2 for the readers. --Noleander (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Because the arcsine series is simple and highly convergent. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 00:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree to a certain extent, but I think the simplicity of the arcsine series isn't well emphasized in the current edit (what's the general term? not clear) nor why it's an improvement over the other two methods. As presently written, I agree this is not suitable for the article. However, I do support a rewrite that might assuage these objections. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

My concerns are the following:

1) There is no citation given to demonstrate the validity of the series ... for an FA status article, a cite is needed

2) This is an article on pi, not an article on convergence. Two examples are ample. More is just showing-off.

3) The pattern of the first two series are plain to the lay readers. The pattern of the new series will be a mystery to them.

4) The first two series were picked because they met two very important criteria: (a) the could be presented without using fancy notations (sigma; factorial, etc); and (b) the number pattern was clear to lay readers. The arcsin series does not meet those criteria.

That said, if anyone can find a series that has a clear pattern, and is supporte by a cite, and can be presented without notations, I have no objection to replacing one of the two original series. --Noleander (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

As I suspected, it was a waste of time. Thanks Nolander, your comment "This is an article on pi, not an article on convergence." has finally convinced me to retire from WP for good; the utility of a simple, rapidly convergent formula for the general reader should be obvious. FYI, Sławomir, the article used to include the general formula, along with a link to arcsine for interested readers. But that has been removed with time, as being just too helpful, evidently. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 18:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The article Convergent series is in pretty bad shape, and has no discussion of rate-of-convergence - none at all. That article could definitely use a new section on that topic, with a large number of examples. It could also include a discussion of quantitatively measuring the rate of convergence. The "Speed of Convergence" section in this article on pi links to Convergent series, so readers of pi article could follow that link to get more examples. It would be great if someone would improve Convergent series. (PS: the pi article did include, about a year ago, lots of material that was not supported by citations. During the processing of upgrading the article to Featured Article status, some of that material was removed because it was already present in subarticles ... but in all cases several editors reviewed the changes as they were made.) Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Seeing no comments, I've made that change. --Noleander (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

New article on Tau

I have started a new article on Tau, which can be found here. Tau is the definition of a notable WP:FRINGE theory. According to WP:Fringe in a nutshell,

Fringe theory in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear.

My article constitutes a "more extensive treatment". I think my sources clearly demonstrate notability, and I can dig up more if we need them. I think I have the proper contextual relationship between tau and pi.

I want to move this article to the article namespace, however given the history and controversiality of this topic, I think gaining consensus here first would be wise.Tazerdadog (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

We've already had this discussion, I don't see that your article introduces anything new; it just has far more advocacy. One of the major problems with older versions of the previous article was it painted it as a serious controversy, with significant proponents on either side. In reality there are a handful of people pushing it and no-one opposing it as there's nothing to oppose.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

So are you claiming that my article fails Neutral point of view or Notability? I want a substantial, neutral article on this topic, and will gladly remove any bias or invite another interested editor to do the same. I thought I had enough perspective in the article to avoid "advocacy". If you would like to suggest or make any changes, feel free to do so - they would be greatly appreciated. Note: While I personally believe tau is probably a better constant, I don't think it makes a significant difference Tazerdadog (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion is here, where all the arguments were thrashed out in detail. And as some of your article is copied from that before it was merged I think you should be aware of it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

JohnBlackburne, the talk at the link you provided are not a neutral point of view and the decision to merge was unclear at best. Because the talk here indicates this not the correct place for this, again NPOV, I highly suggest that with this page is moved to the User:Tazerdadog/Tau_(Proposed_mathematical_constant) talk page and talk about it. Show the editor some respect, look at it, and comment on how to improve it. I think a lot of people who thinks this should be separate article have been hushed for to long. John W. Nicholson (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion was a standard Wikipedia Request for Comment. The consensus was that the article should be merged to Pi. That's how Wikipedia works, by consensus. No-one was 'hushed', everyone had their opportunity to participate in the discussion. Re-read the discussion if it is unclear to you, I think the closing administrator summarised it well.

This need not be permanent; it may be Tau becomes independently notable one day. But I don't see it now, in particular in this draft article which seems to include much the same content as the previously merged one, not least as some of it is directly copied.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It has become notable. See comments by David Be above, just for what he was looking for, this alone, throws out your argument. If you wish talk about this more please continue at User:Tazerdadog/Tau_(Proposed_mathematical_constant) with valid arguments for or against the writing which is there. John W. Nicholson (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. And as far as I can see the only sources that satisfy that are the same sources that were in the merged article (in fact these are some of the content copied and pasted from that article). So there is nothing new establishing notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better myself. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I think my article meets that criterion. If you disagree, by all means let's get a third opinion. I will see if I can't substantially rephrase the content to be different, I wrote everything but the in popular culture and history stuff from scratch. I will rework those parts when I get time. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I could also find more sources if that is the issue. They are plentiful, and do exist. However, I think that the article would not benefit from their inclusion, as it is a little cluttered with sources as it is, and every statement that in my editorial opinion should be referenced is referenced (if you disagree on this, let me know on my draft's talk page so I can source them). Tazerdadog (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It might help the tauist case if you could get your facts a bit more accurate. There is no new proposed new constant, only a proposed new name for an existing constant. That is how mathematics works: as a matter of fact, if you write a mathematically interesting and useful book about 2pi using 'tau' to refer to it, people will buy it and read it -- idiosyncratic notation is egregiously OK in maths. I plan to add something to the pi article mentioning the 'tau' suggestion at some stage, and pointing out that the choice of pi as the named constant is mathematically arbitrary (but historically concluded). Apart from the obvious fact that you could choose to name the ratio p/d (pi=tau/2), p/r (2pi=tau), p/4r (pi/2=tau/4) or (my favourite) the ratio of a circular arc centred on one vertex of an equilateral triangle through the other two vertices (=pi/3=tau/6='beta'), the fact that pi is transcendental means that the algebraically interesting structure (Q[pi] = Q[tau] etc) is the same anyway. In other words the (mathematically) interesting properties of pi and tau and beta and the rest are the same anyway. But I need some time, and help... Imaginatorium (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The claim made by Hartl, Palais, and other tauists is not that 2π/𝜏 is a new constant with any new properties, or that it changes mathematics in any way. The claim is that formulae are expressed in a cleaner, beautiful, or more aesthetically pleasing manner when using tau. I will make a note to edit the page to make perfectly clear that the math is the same regardless of your choice of circle-constant. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

As the only truly dissenting voice appears to be JohnBlackburne, I am going to go ahead and move my article to mainspace in about 24 hours unless someone else objects. I have reviewed everything you have presented, JohnBlackburne and I feel that current local consensus on the draft is in favor, and that the policies are on my side. In particular, the WP:GNG seems to me to be satisfied by the sources I am currently using, and there are other sources (search tau pi circle to see a good chunk of them) that also exist to show notability (although I don't think they would improve the article, which is why they are not in the article). Because my article meets the general notability guideline, it can be made into an article per WP:FRINGE, in exactly the same way as face on mars, Flat earth society, or even Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell. I have tried hard to make it WP:NPOV, and I think it both explains tau clearly, and emphasizes it's relationship to mainstream mathematics (Namely yet another superfluous constant). GIven all of this, I fail to find a credible policy-based objection (According to my interpretation. Yours may be different). I have also read through the RFC, and feel that it was based on an assumption that the sourcing was weak. The sources now exist. As for the AfD, the main problem seemed to be the title. I feel by title is more appropriate. Finally consensus can change, and I feel fairly confident that it has changed. Regards, Tazerdadog (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I think your proposed article is a decent attempt at an NPOV treatment, but I have a problem with the lede. Tau is not a "proposed mathematical constant," it is a proposed new name for a well known constant, 2π or circumference/radius for a circle, if you wish. In either case, 2π should be mentioned before the approximate decimal value. --agr (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and I will make that change. The problem is that I don't know what to call it. Tau (Proposed name for 2π) sounds kind of dumb, and implies that the article is about the name, and not the constant. Tau (2π movement) is another idea, but it still falls well short. I will keep thinking about this. In the mean time if anyone has a better or more desctiptive title, please do let me know. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

A discussion here in November 2011 on a similar topic resulted in the phrase "alternative notation for 2π". You might want to move the 2π to the beginning of that phrase though, so people typing the word tau into Wikipedia's search box can more easily spot it in the autocomplete. Maybe something like "Tau (2π alternative notation)". --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate it greatly if you would link me to that discussion. That is an idea, but "alternative" implies IMHO a higher degree of acceptance than Tau actually has. I really want to keep the part in parentheses succinct, but seeing as the name was the biggest bones of contention, I also want to get it right - perhaps Tau (2π proposed notation)?

Tazerdadog (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Here ya go. Personally, I consider Tau (2π) the most logical page title. The purpose of a disambiguator in parentheses is simply to make clear which tau you're talking about, not to confer or imply some official endorsement by, or preference of, the mathematics community. In fact, show me where else Wikipedia demands such a warning be in the page title itself. Do alternative medicine articles require a "not accepted by the medical community" warning in their titles? --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll give a third opinion if you don't mind a relative layman's perspective. I have no bias or strong opinion on the subject, the only reason I'm really aware of the subject is that my birthday happens to be June 28, or "Tau Day". I looked at the article and the main thing that struck me was the overall nature of the sources; they seemed to be more "Slow news day"-type sources, rather than mathematics-related sources, which are the kind of sources I would expect to find on a mathematics-related article. As it stands now the sources in the article bring to mind WP:NOTNEWSPAPER's comment that "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". I don't see any sources that are in that version of the article that weren't in the previous version, and the RfC determined that those sources were insufficient to warrant a separate article so if you don't mind me asking, what sources have been introduced or could be introduced into the article that would make it substantially different and to warrant a separate article?

I also think if the article were to be moved into mainspace, the parenthetical disambiguation would need to be changed, unless I'm just critically misunderstanding the whole "mathematical concept" thing. The page Tau appears to give a more apt summary by calling it "a proposed name" as opposed to "proposed mathematical constant". My understanding is that as mathematical constant it is certainly nothing new and the only thing different is the way in which it is expressed. I'm not trying to suggest that the subject doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but I would say that the references currently in the article don't really express a need to have a separate article, especially since an RfC already came to the consensus that they did with a version of the article that uses the same references. My advice would be to improve the references with mathematics-related sources, showing some use of Tau or discussing it in some way. As for the name, I looked at the references currently in the article and most of them seem to use its relation to pi as the most concise description: "The proper number is 2pi, or tau", so I think Tau (2pi) or Tau (2π) might be a better name for it. - SudoGhost 06:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that there can be any reasoned objection to the existence of this article, since there is a "notable" (if very fringe) campaign to rewrite standard formulae using tau for 2pi. But the title should be right: "proposed constant" is wrong, and even "proposed name for a constant" is wrong, mathematically speaking. If I decide to write a paper using nonstandard terminology, I simply go ahead. "In this paper 'tau' means 2pi." No need for any proposing. So the title should be either "Tau (mathematical constant)" or, more explicitly "Tau (2pi)". Imaginatorium (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There was an established RfC that was closed by an uninvolved administrator showing the objection to such an article, which is about as clear an objection as one can get on Wikipedia. I don't know what you mean by "you don't see that there can be any reasoned objection", since the RfC shows that there quite obviously already was. Either the sources need to be substantially improved or a new RfC should be created to determine if consensus has changed, but unless one or both of those things happen I don't think it likely for there to be an article for Tau. - SudoGhost 07:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I will hold off on the move to mainspace until I have improved the sourcing to better demonstrate notability. I would argue that the RfC was flawed in its basic assumptions, but that is not for me to decide. In either case, the sources are there, I just need to put them in. Thanks for the uninvolved opinion SudoGhost Tazerdadog (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The sources have now been dug up. Most of them are on the talk page, as I think that most of them add no real value to the article. They do, however, provide a strong claim of notability to tau. If nobody objects, I'm probably going to move this to article space sometime tomorrow. If people do object, then its probably time for a new RfC. Thanks in advance, Tazerdadog (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole tau proposal is A fringe theory from the point of view of Wikipedia, and requires secondary sources that are independent of the subject of the article. I have not seen any sources that I think would qualify. (The only sources are of the "junk food news" variety mentioned explicitly in WP:FRINGE.) While I do see some evidence that the tau proposal might eventually garner some scientific coverage meriting a Wikipedia article, that doesn't seem to have happened yet. It is certainly true that there are more sources available now than at the time of the previous RfC, they do not seem to have improved. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I would highly suggest that you read David Be's comments above and realize that he was not looking for pi. Which says two things. One, tau is demonstrated notable. Second is that it needs to be separated for reasons of WP:NPOV. You can say it is fringe theory but it is notable enough that people are looking for it and requesting in comments. John W. Nicholson (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Not everything that people would be interested in reading about belong in an encyclopedia. The notability of a fringe theory is established by its prevalence in sources that are independent of the subject. In particular, that means not opeds, not YouTube videos, not self-published manifestos, but real scholarly works in properly peer reviewed venues. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that not everything that people are interested in should have an article, I disagree with your assessment of the notability of Tau. I believe that your interpretation of the policy in question is extremely narrow. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tazerdadog here. The notability bar in WP:Fringe is not that high. Fringe theories don't get "real scholarly works in properly peer reviewed venues" almost by definition. I'd like Tazerdadog to show the sources for all the items in his list that are not self published, but there are enough good sources in his list to move forward. --agr (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

For everyone's convenience, here is the list of the sources I have thus far found.Tazerdadog (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I will trawl through all of the sources tomorrow sometime to extract the non-self published ones. In the meantime, the sources are below if anyone is curious. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Arnold, the bar is quite clear. From WP:FRINGE: "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers." The question is, has this bar been met or hasn't it? Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• When the sources in the list below are full of not only the same type of "slow news day" sources that are no different than the ones discussed in the RfC, but also personal blogs like this and this that wouldn't even be acceptable as a source let alone a source that establishes any notability, it certainly looks like citation bombardment; throwing everything in a Google search to the wall and hoping something sticks. The news articles are exactly the type that fall under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." If the only sources are blogs and news pieces then it doesn't warrant an article, that's the consensus the RfC reached and nothing has been introduced that would make that consensus any different, just more of the same stuff. Quality, not quantity. - SudoGhost 12:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• OK, it is not 42 (which is in Wikipedia), but close 47. See 47 below which is now used as a reference. I am sure a MAA publication in April (not pi or tau day) is not WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and it is "at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers". Or, is it not? He at least brings the notable level up because it show serious people are thinking and talking about the subject matter even when you clam they are not.

John W. Nicholson (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't find the MAA publication you mention on the list. Could you point it out? Again, it would really help if self-published sources were removed or segregated, as they have no relevance to this discussion.--agr (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Opps, I meant 46 here, however see my comment below with the same time and date and realize that it is better to have just one list. In the user space article, [6]. Or, this link http://www.maa.org/Mathhorizons/apr12_aftermath.pdf

John W. Nicholson (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(break for length)

Now can we go on and start this article? Or do we have to waste more time talking about how it would be nice to get these tauist off this pious article? :p <tounge-in-cheek> Please feel free to bring you complaints of tau references to the page. Otherwise, do I have to point to something that I am sure you already know about? Like we are in a WP:BURO or this subject matter is WP:NOTSTUPID or something else? This argument against a tau article is just getting more and more pointless and non-NPOV.

John W. Nicholson (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It is neither WP:BURO nor is it "non-NPOV" or "pointless" just because you disagree with the consensus of the RfC; the sources are more numerous, but are still the same type of references. More of the same crap is still crap, piling it on higher doesn't change that. Unless some better sources are found, there's nothing that warrants a separate article. - SudoGhost 14:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It's quite strange that things like YouTube videos and cartoons have been advanced as potential sources for the article. I have no doubt that eventually there will be reliable sources that are credibly independent of the subject of the article. But until that time, it would obviously violate WP:NPOV (and a host of other pillars) to have an article based solely on the opinions of those in favor of a fringe idea. Surely that is not too difficult to grasp. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

If you think something needs to be edited with this future article, I would suggest that you go to the page and edit it. Coming here to talk about it does not help in fact it is a waste of time on edits. If you continue to make statements here they might start being ignored because of this. Because pi is about pi, and pi is not about keeping other constants from having their "day in the sun", this future article should end the pi WP:NPOV and WP:BURO issues. So, from now on, that is the place to talk, to change, and to edit things with this future article. If there is no comments there, I see no reason not to have the article to go live, references included. If you don't like a reference, I suggest that you label it with WP:whatever-you-think-it-volates and make a comment on why you think it should be removed from the list. Please do not remove it from the list until the people there agrees to do so in a cooperative way. While this article is not live yet, the arguments that I am seeing here are not helping to change how that article will be worded. I see threats like "there's nothing that warrants a separate article", as stated above, as just that a threat. I would highly suggest that you read WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND if you think that way. John W. Nicholson (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree with moving it to article-space at the moment. While my personal belief is that the article is about a notable topic, verified by reliable sources and written from a neutral point of view, the consensus here is very unclear. Lacking a clear consensus, the previous one, which is the RFC, is in effect. Please do hold off on a move until consensus clarifies one way or another. I do believe the article belongs in article space personally, but this position is not clearly supported. In addition, I do agree that the proper place for this discussion is the the proposed article's talk page. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I can see that I may have confused thing for some people with my statements, so let me be clear. I you have any comments to make with this issue about tau do as Tazerdadog suggest: "the proper place for this discussion is the the proposed article's talk page." Do this so that we can have it all at one place and not split between pi (which is not really being edited for pi with the comments for/against tau) and tau as propose page. I know the tau page is not ready until there is a consensus there, not here. People can argue all they want here about the existence of the proposed tau page here, but I for one will start to ignore it because that conversation needs to be taking place on the proposed tau page alone. I am sure when a consensus does happen there a RFC will be made at that time as to make sure we have input from everyone and notice of this RFC will be placed in pages like Talk:pi, Talk:Tau_(2π), and others. However, we need to first have a 'complete' article before a RFC issued. John W. Nicholson (talk) 07:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't see how your repeated reference to WP:BURO is at all relevant. It's fine to invoke this in the spirit of doing something that might violate the spirit of a guideline if there is a clear consensus for doing it. It's quite another to think that it automatically means that you are right simply because what you are proposing violates policies. That's clearly a perverse interpretation. As for WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, this does not mean that there will never be content disputes. It cautions against "ideological battles", but I have certainly never been ideological in this discussion. My personal opinions on τ versus π have never once entered this discussion, although I can't say the same for other participants. Finally, I'm not sure why you seem to think it's ok to propose a new article here, but then at the first sign of dissenting opinions to demand that everyone should write their replies elsewhere. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

John, when you read "There's nothing here that warrants an article" as a threat, you seriously need to rethink how you're reading things, not least of all because accusing someone of making threats is an accusation about personal behavior that lacks evidence. It does not matter if you "see no reason not to have the article to go live", the RfC, which was closed by an uninvolved administrator, concluded that the subject did not warrant a separate article, so you "not seeing" something does not throw consensus out the window. The references in the article are the same type that consensus concluded as insufficient, so either the references need to be improved, or consensus needs to change. Short of one or both of those happening, the subject does not warrant an article. That is not a "threat", that was the RfC consensus. Before you cite WP:BURO again you might want to read it first, particularly the part about consensus-based discussion, seeing as how you're trying to argue against the consensus, not any policy or guideline. - SudoGhost 14:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• (Editor invited into this discussion post retirement) In my opinion, Tau has already got quite a bit of coverage from reliable sources. And as such, an article of the same needs to be etched out on Wikipedia. As for the draft article under question and the various issues related to them, I'll like to offer my 2 paise.

• First, the lead needs to clarify what Tau is, and needs to stray away from ambiguous words like proposed constant. We need to be clear cut in explaining that it is a constant that is proposed for widespread usage at the expense of the more common pi.
• Second, I prefer the name "Tau (2π)" because of its preciseness in explaining the scenario. But we must also try to look into other typing-friendly alternatives.
• Next, the various sections of the article must be changed. Rather than focusing on the arguments for and against, we must include them in the lead, and try to incorporate more examples and relevance into how much it is accepted in the mathematical community, and the general public as a whole.
• Although graphics are usually good, we may use a little less of them in this article, so as to not show the obvious in a deceptive way (A first glance tends to give the indication its something new, but then we realise its the same as pi, with one minor difference.)

These are the main things I had to say. As for the article, I definitely support it, but the article needs reworking and some bold trimming before we bring it into the mainspace. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You say ".. a constant that is proposed for widespread us[ag]e at the expense of the more common pi." But this could be misleading. "Proposed" makes it sound as though the Internation Committe for the Standardisation of Mathematical Terminology has urged the adoption of some new term, much as atmospheric pressures changed from millibars to hectoPascals. But this is not true at all: the "tau" movement is, however "notable", totally a fringe campaingn. Perhaps most importantly it ignores the fact that in mathematics writers can and do make up their own terminology all the time, just so long as it is defined. So no "proposal" is required -- anyone who thinks their paper will be improved by writing tau for 2pi can do so.

I was corrected above, because I said I couldn't see any reasonable objection to a tau page. (But in a sense, "reason" means something different from "rules", which are what I hadn't understood properly.) I certainly think that it is tactically better to have a tau page, because it avoids endless rather boring discussions like this one. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment - There was an article on tau, (here is the archive of it), and the article was deleted (or merged) in April 2012 because of an RfC in its Talk page. That was about 10 months ago. The comments in the RfC were rather divided: at least 6 editors !voted for Keep .. it certainly was not unanimous by any means. As mentioned above, consensus can change. My recommendation for editors that want a new article on tau is to continue gathering sources for another month or two, prepare the best article you can, then when April 2013 arrives (one year from the deletion) post the new article into the Tau_(2π) page and start another RfC to see if the community thinks that the sources demonstrate that the Notability requirement has been met. --Noleander (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Procedural question - Assume for the moment that the new article is going to get good enough to satisfy everybody that it should become the new Tau_(2π) article. Will there be any problem with merging the Talk pages of the old and new articles? Would it make the eventual move easier if development discussion took place at Talk:Tau_(2π) instead of User_talk:Tazerdadog/Tau_(Proposed_mathematical_constant)? We don't want to lose either the discussions of the past 1.5 years, or the discussions we will be having during the next two months. And if discussions occur on both Talk pages in the coming months, the merged result will look confusing. Alternatively, we could post a message at Talk:Tau_(2π) that all discussion should now occur at User_talk:Tazerdadog/Tau_(Proposed_mathematical_constant). Suggestions? --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Good points. I suppose it doesnt matter where the "merge" discussion happens, as long as it is co-located and prominent notices are made at all relevant pages. Proponents of the new article (Tazerdadog?) should take responsibility for selecting a centralized discussion location, and then posting notices on all the relevant talk pages. --Noleander (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

RFC

I have started a RFC on the notability of tau on the talk page of the article in my userspace. The RFC can be found here

List of sources about tau on the proposed article's Talk page (link)

Newly published SAMS programming book (dead tree) that uses tau. books.google.com/books?id=BFda3Z71Y5YC&printsec=frontcover --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Bible Error discussion

There is an interesting dicussion here about the so-called Bible error from First Kings, ch 7. maybe it could be referenced or included in the discussion. http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.181.26.18 (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The article is not mathematically interesting, and looks awfully like special pleading. The writers of the bible used a perfectly good rough approximation of pi as 3. So nothing to include. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not new. I myself wrote something along the exact same lines in 1991 (here), based on what I read in Petr Beckmann's A History of Pi about Rabbi Nehemiah's writings in his Mishnat ha-Middot on pi. The trouble is finding credible references that seriously consider (from a scholarly point of view) this as a plausible explanation. — Loadmaster (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

A much more extensive treatment of this topic is in Approximations of π#Imputed biblical value. Maybe where it's discussed in this article, we should just use a "See also" wikilink to that. I actually think this subject would fit better at Biblical inerrancy#Scientific and historical criticism or Science and the Bible, since biblical inerrancy is really why most people are interested in it. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and added the wikilink. I'll let others (Noleander?) decide whether to scale back what's in this article to just a general statement about people having tried to explain away the bible discrepancy. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Without Tau

Here is a paper which does not talk about tau, but it is criticial of pi:

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."

John W. Nicholson (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't really see it as being critical of pi. Wouldn't their argument still apply if everyone were using tau? Maybe I didn't examine the paper closely enough, but what they seemed to be criticizing was how radians are introduced to young students as just another arbitrary-size angle unit. That we teach π radians = 180° the same way we teach 2.54 centimeters = 1 inch. Just a pointless alternative unit with a messy conversion factor, as far as the students are concerned. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The use of fraction

Take any rational or irrational numbers under 180,divide those numbers by 180 and take the sine of those digits in radian mode or by the use of Taylor series.Invert the sine in degree mode and divide the numbers that were divided by 180 using the answers that were given by Taylor series or in radian mode reverted to degree mode(the dividend), and you obtain pi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twentythreethousand (talk • contribs) 20:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

sin 18 and cos 72

sin 18=1÷(1+sqrt5) and in radian asin(1÷(1+sqrt5))=π÷10 Twentythreethousand (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It is time to move Tau out of the In popular culture section

There is currently an RfC underway at User_talk:Tazerdadog/Tau_(Proposed_mathematical_constant) over whether to have a full Wikipedia article about tau. (You may want to read through it if you haven't already.) Among other new sightings of tau listed there is that the UC San Diego math department has begun teaching tau in one of its Calculus courses. There's plenty of other evidence, but when an accredited math department at a major university has begun using tau instead of pi in one of its courses, you can no longer claim tau is just "popular culture". I'm not asking for tau to be given more lines in the pi article. Just that it be moved to a more appropriate section. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that Tau be removed from 'In Popular Culture', since by no stretch of the imagination can it be considered a feature of popular culture at all. But I propose that we don't reinstate it anywhere else instead. It's a fringe position, and attempts to represent it as otherwise are misleading. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Professors have pretty wide latitude in their courses. We do many stranger things than that. But I doubt that this is some sort of official department decision; the book they use is the standard Hughes-Hallet text that is all in terms of π. I think that having τ in the "pop culture" section is a reasonable compromise as it is primarily a pop culture phenomenon to the extent it is a phenomenon at all. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't imagine he's doing it without the department's consent. I'm not suggesting the UCSD math department has decided to en masse switch all their courses over to tau, but I highly doubt this is a case of a rogue instructor (and his cabal of T.A.'s) trying to get away with doing it in secret. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't imagine why you think this -- do you suppose that lecturers have to ask for departmental approval for every detail of their notation? You keep saying things like "They are teaching tau at [some university]", but what does it mean to "teach tau"? There isn't anything to teach which is distinct from "teaching pi" (as it were; no-one says "teach pi" either). It would help if we had some specific details of what is in these courses that involves tau. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The UC San Diego material is linked to and discussed over in the RfC. If you look through it, you should see why I don't believe the instructor would be doing it without the department's consent. Especially on a foundational course like Calculus III. (Not saying he had to somehow officially apply for approval.) Tau displaces pi in the course, even to the extent that only tau appears on the exams. The instructor's course formula sheet handout is in terms of tau only. As are the instructor's homework exercises. So it's a pretty safe bet the lectures are too. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

They're also teaching tau in some courses at Queen Mary University of London. I haven't had time to sift through their website yet and determine the full extent of it, though. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to leave the pi article alone until the tau article issue is resolved. RfCs normally run for 30 days, so that is another few weeks for the tau RfC. Then, I predict, an AfD will happen (which is the appropriate process for the question being asked in the RfC) which will take a week or two. After that, we could revisit the pi article and see how it is impacted by all that activity. --Noleander (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the outcome over there, tau is clearly not a "popular culture" topic like room decorations, baked desserts, football cheers, fiction novels, pop songs, politicians, and TV shows. We really should at least begin thinking about where to fit it somewhere else in the article. Are we really providing an accurate, truthful article by knowingly miscategorizing tau, instead of just telling readers that as of the present, it isn't being widely used? --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

There are no reliable mathematical sources for it. So if it's not to go in popular culture based on the 'trivia of the day' news coverage it should be removed entirely, until the day there are reliable academic sources for it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Fine, we'll play your Wikilawyer games, John. They're more important than providing readers with honest information. In any case, Noleander, you might want to begin thinking about where tau could be moved in the article once those sources do show up. Because it's clear that they will soon. I also want to repeat that I'm not looking to expand tau's coverage in the Pi article. But this stick-a-dunce-cap-on-it game of putting tau in the popular culture section is just plain childish. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

'Wikilawyer' ? I was expressing my opinion as you were yours. You've provided no reliable academic sources for your suggested changes, just that it's been spotted in some lecture notes. That shows nothing: in my experience individual lecturers can teach what and how they want.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 'Wikilawyer'. You missed his second part of that statement: "They're more important than providing readers with honest information." Now, will you stop fighting to keep good, honest articles FROM existing and help instead to fight to have them to exist? Or, are you going to keep ignoring this and keep 'Wikilawyering'? John W. Nicholson (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

No. See Wikipedia:Wikilawyering#Misuse of the term. Using it without explaining it is simply pejorative. And when editors start using pejorative language it is usually as they've run out of reasoned arguments. Please bring new arguments and take the offensive language elsewhere.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe he just defended himself from accusations of Wikilawyering by quoting a WP: Policies and Guidelines page. Priceless. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

And, which in effect is proving your point that he cares not about the reader and wants to talk about the rule of Wikipedia. John, you asked a question about if what you are doing is "'Wikilawyer'?", I gave an opinion too. Just being honest for you. John W. Nicholson (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

@JL - Yes, placement of tau in the pi article is an independent question from existence of the tau article. My point is one of editing efficiency: WP only has so many volunteers, and there is lots of work to be done all over the place. Beginning a discussion here will cause two major discussions to be happening at once: the RfC, and a discussion here about WP:FRINGE. We don't need two discussions going at once. Your contributions log shows that you are essentially a single purpose account. The rest of us are spread thin working on a variety of things. I'm just suggesting that we have one major tao discussion going at a time. There is no rush. --Noleander (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, and I agree there is no hurry. I'm completely sympathetic to being too busy to deal with everything. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

My own view: Move Tau out into its own article with a link to it perhaps from here, where it can sit and fester independently and no longer clutter up this page with its bletheringly pointless existence. Tau-fetishists can then go and play their silly games somewhere else. --Matt Westwood 09:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I very much agree. Personally I find the subject of "tau" rather less interesting than, oh, say Honeycomb toffee, but there are easily enough pointers to the existence of "tauism" for it to be considered notable. Given a topic about it, it would be much easier to trim the special pleading; since it is an issue of notation alone (pace the seminar in Oxford, and I'm not going to pay sixty quid, not to mention the airfare, just to find out they can't really support their wilder claims, even if some of the history might be very interesting), and the WP article should have no mathematical content as such at all. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Tau is a very silly choice for 2π anyway. Just look at it, it's more like half a π, or like a π with one leg missing, so it would have been a good choice for π/2 or perhaps π/3, but 2π? No, definitely not. - DVdm (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The legs are in the denominator. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting idea, letting tau be π/2. A collaborative WPM venture entitled "A tau semifesto" could argue that π should be replaced by τ=π/2. The argument in favor is that the right angle is a meaningful geometric angle that can be readily illustrated in a drawing and accessible to a student, unlike the degenerate angle of π, a vestige of Greek Antiquity. One could conclude that π is way too much; in fact, twice as much as we are willing to take. Tkuvho (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Nah... pi isn't way too much. Why, some of us Americans eat so much that we even want to super-size our circle constant. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

(Back to the main theme...) Perhaps the article should be on tauism (2&pi);, with tau (2π) still redirecting here. I can see no reason for there to be an article on "tau", but tauism might be appropriate. In other words, no reason to change this article at all, except possibly to shrink the section slightly, and add {{main}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I understand (and agree with) your second sentence, namely that the article would be about the push/arguments to have tau replace pi, rather than just an almost-carbon-copy of the pi article with all the formulas adjusted to use tau. I'm not sure that "tauism" is the best title to use, for reasons I can explain later. But why would you still want tau (2π) to redirect here? --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

That sort of article would make a mountain out of a molehill. There is no huge debate going about about whether τ should replace π - what is being presented are mostly blog posts and cherry-picked comments about τ. It would be like writing an article on the calculus reform movement in 1988. There are simply not enough reliable third-party sources for us to write a sensible article about τ at the moment, and it is better to keep the "he said / she said" text to a minimum rather than treating it as a giant soap opera. In five years, it will be clear whether τ made any headway. At the moment, it is too early to say anything much beyond what is already in this article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Pi Day (3/14) at Tau Time (6:28pm). Cartoon or not, MIT wasn't kidding.

It really is a new MIT tradition. They've announced that again this year, admissions decisions for the fall freshman class will be posted online on Pi Day (3/14) at Tau Time (6:28pm). For anyone who missed it last year, here is a link to the formal proclamation, written in official MIT crayon: mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/i-have-smashing-news --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This item does not seem to be mentioned in the "popular culture" section. It can be added if other editors agree. Tkuvho (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

From an anonymous (I assume 'Sir Nigel Blogberry' is not a real person) blog of cartoons? That's not a reliable source and requires a significant amount of interpretation, i.e. original research, to extract the information about π and τ (they are only mentioned in the cartoon – the announcement just gives the date and time).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is this years: http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/breaking-news John W. Nicholson (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Tau needs attention

Editors (both from [1], meat puppets?) appear to be trying to recreate Tau_(2π) contrary to prior discussions. Can some others keep an eye? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't look at me. I don't know anyone from Sweden. Why do you suspect they are "meat puppets", rather than just people interested in tau but not interested in following the rules? (Serious question, not rhetorical) --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there anything controversial about the following removed sentence? "Salman Khan, named in Time's 2012 annual list of the 100 most influential people in the world,[149] advocated the use of τ before π in one of his educational videos at Khan Academy.[150]" –St.nerol (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It's implicitly making the argument that, because Khan was named by Time, his opinion is particularly noteworthy to the issue of τ. That is an example of what is sometimes called "synthesis" in the original research policy. In fact, it is not at all clear whether Khan's opinion about mathematics is important to the mathematical community. I am not sure that Khan Academy is particularly well regarded. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Might do better describing his importance in math education. A VERY LARGE number of people do learn math from Salman Khan, so while the "mathematical community" may look down their nose at his math expertise, he's an undeniably important figure in math education. By the way, where you wrote "τ before π", I think you meant "τ instead of π". --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not clear whether Khan has credibility in the mathematics education community, e.g. http://chronicle.com/blognetwork/castingoutnines/2013/02/05/khan-academy-redux/ as a starting point into the discussion. I would wager there has been much more discussion of Khan Academy in the mathematics education community than in the mathematics research community. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Just because he has critics in the math education community doesn't mean that the community in general sees him in a negative light. That's true with any expert community. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

In any case, the point about the sentence is that it is making two separate arguments: (1) that the Time mention indicates Khan's opinion about τ is valuable and (2) Khan has expressed support for &tau. Point (1) is far from clear to me - why would inclusion on Time's list indicate any particular expertise about τ? Moreover, even if it did, why would Khan's opinion be more valuable than the actual mathematicians whom we already know have written things supporting τ? Khan seems like a particularly odd choice for an example of someone who speaks for the consensus of the mathematics or mathematics education communities, given that he is not really part of either of those communities. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Who said we could only quote people who speak for the consensus of an entire expert community? Salman Khan's opinion matters in math education. He's head of a very large (in terms of numbers of students) educational organization. So much so that I don't think you need to explain at length who he is. "Salman Khan, founder and CEO of the online learning resource Khan Academy, advocated the use of...". Everyone knows Khan Academy. Wikilink Salman Khan (educator) and Khan Academy for people who don't. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"Salman Khan's opinion matters in math education." - that is exactly the claim I am disputing. The sentence in question tries to argue that his opinion matters because the Time list mentions him. But, much as is the case with τ, it is too soon to see what influence Khan will have on mathematics education, and there is no reason apart from faith to think that τ will become widely accepted or that Khan will have a lasting influence. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree citing Time isn't the way to go. But just because a man hasn't completely transformed how everyone learns math in this country doesn't mean we can't quote him in the article. The stats in the Khan Academy article make clear just how big they are, and Salman Khan steers (and built) that ship. Just by virtue of what he chooses to do at Khan Academy alone, his opinion matters in math education. After saying all this though, if you and St.nerol decided that mentioning Stephen Abbott's endorsement would be more agreeable to everyone, that's fine too. I'm going to bed. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that adding any more material on tau - regardless of how outstanding the source is - would violate the WP UNDUE policy, because it would give readers the impression that tau is more important that it is. Tau already has about 1% of the pi article (just a rough guess) ... yet in the math literature, tau has about 0.00001% as much weight as pi. Increasing the text in the article above 1% would give readers the erroneous impression. Any more details about tau can go into an article dedicated to tau, not here. --Noleander (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

When I started editing Wikipedia I was taught that sentences should not just state stuff, but exemplify why it is relevant. It seems to me that was what the deleted sentence tried to do. Does naming a notable proponent gives tau undue wheight? Well, then that'd be because the rest of the article is too short. With your reasoning we should also go straight ahead and e.g. remove the three sections about creationism from the article of evolution. –St.nerol (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The problems with the sentence are (1) it is not clear how "strongly" he is a proponent; all I see is that he made a video about τ. Has he done a lecture tour on it? Has he written a textbook that uses it? The sentence mentions his name but there is no way, at the moment, to tell exactly what his contribution is. (2) If the goal was simply to mention that Khan supports τ (whatever that means, cf. 1), then there is no need to mention the Time article. Really, the problem is that there is not enough reliably sourced material about τ which is what makes it tempting to look for anything at all related just to have something to say. But the solution to that is to wait until there are enough good sources before trying to write much. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears that Salman Khan (educator) has his own page (if this is the same person as discussed above). If so, providing the link to his page is sufficient. Any additional adjectives should be removed as WP:PEACOCK terms. Tkuvho (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK says that one shouldn't use terms like legendary, great, etc; but just describe the facts. The non-peacock example given is: "Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, where he was called "master poet..." –St.nerol (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Proponents

I removed a "who" tag. A sentence that says "proponents" and then has two references by different people is perfectly clear about "who" is making the claims: the people being referenced.

However, I am mildly troubled by labeling people who write or say anything in favor of τ as "proponents". I find it too dualistic; I don't see an need to divide people into "proponents" and "opponents" when actual opinions will be more nuanced. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Pi Pie Image

Implying that there is only a link between pies and pi puns because of the shape of a pie is ridiculous as pies come in any such shape they are made in, and plenty are not circular. Whether a pie is baked round or square, it's almost certainly the name association that leads people to make jokes regarding the two, not the shape. Most people aren't so mathematically enthused as to make the effort to make a math-enthusiast-only-audience joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.129.230 (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This was briefly discussed here. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The Anti-Pi Song

This is actually pretty good. (Not tau propaganda, though it does mention tau at one point.) www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCEhvenbfYM --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)