Now it works.

Tau references radius, pi references diameter

I'm not sure why everyone makes an issue of Tau being better than Pi. It's not really important, since Tau is a constant multiple of Pi. That's like saying that 6 is better than 3 because 2*3 = 6. It's not really that big of a difference, except in that {x|(x Mod Tau) = 0}⊆ {x|(x Mod Pi) = 0}

EDIT: ( {x|(x Mod Tau) = 0}⊆{x|(x Mod Pi) = 0} ) ^ ( {X∈{x|(x Mod Pi) = 0}|X∉{x|(x Mod Tau)}}≠∅)

It's starting to look like Haskell now...

What I was getting at is that the difference is so minor that there's no reason to change convention. Plus, A = r²π is nicer than A=(Tau/2)r²

List of places where Tau would be just as bad as or worse than Pi:

Euler's identity: E^iπ=-1

Heisenberg uncertainty principle: Δx Δp = h/4π
Coulomb's law: F = |q₁ q₂|/(4πε₀r²)

∫_-∞^∞ e^-x2 = √(π)

Standard Cauchy distribution: (π(1+x²))^-1

More coming...

So, use Pi for some equations, and Tau for others depending on which works better.

Edit: Ninja'd

Heisenberg uncertainty principle: Δx Δp = h/4π

I think most physicists would agree that the more natural constant is ħ = h/2π. (There's that 2π again.)

Quote from: Qwerty.55 on March 19, 2011, 06:14:07 pm

Heisenberg uncertainty principle: Δx Δp = h/4π

I think most physicists would agree that the more natural constant is ħ = h/2π. (There's that 2π again.)

Well, I can't argue with the reduced Planck's constant.

I said e^tau i = 1

Damn, now I don't have 1111 posts

Muahahahahaha, you took the bait to destroy your evil power  

j/k  

What I'm saying is that I have no problem with either Tau or Pi. But saying that we should be teaching students one or the other is kind of stupid since neither one really simplifies anything. I mean, if I can take an equation with a couple of variables and operations, then blow it up into a hundred operation expression through "simplification," then using a factor of 2 or 1/2 doesn't seem like a bad thing to deal with.