> 6.1.2013 22:47, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote: >> In <email@example.com>, on 01/06/2013 >> at 07:44 PM, Kaba <firstname.lastname@example.org> said: >> >>> Just a guess: what's your browser and its version? >> >> It's pretty old; FF 3.5.3. My next OS upgrade will include a new FF; I >> have mixed feelings about that. >> >> I did notice that the article talked about a conspiracy, which is >> always a red flag, and that it used nonstandard nomenclature. > > I agree that's a red flag in general, as everything which includes > subjective feelings in an objective subject. Since the writer is a > scientist (a physicist), though, it seems to me that the text has > intentionally been written to appeal to a non-scientific audience, with > the intent of maximizing its spread. > > Usually I'm irritated by someone slipping in his own feelings about > whatever he is writing about, since that, in my experience, is an > indication of ignorance. Every new idea feels exciting at first, but > after mastering it, it starts to feel neutral. In the other way, if > something feels exciting, then you probably don't have much experience > on it. In particular, I think that the excitement on the unknown is > nature's way of driving humans to explore ever new things. > > Some people choose to spend much of their time in an intentional state > of ignorance, enjoying the mystery, all the while not recognizing it as > ignorance. > > That said, in my opinion the article makes a good case in favor of > adopting tau instead of pi. The mathematics is anyway objective, even if > described subjectively.
It's all a matter of convention. Whether, as it happens, it's somewhat more convenient to use 2pi as a constant, rather than pi, surely is one of the least interesting mathematical points one can make, barely better than insisting that the numeral seven ought to have a crossbar to better distinguish it from one.
-- Jesse F. Hughes "Of course, my ability to admit my mistakes and correct them is a trait that many of you seem to never have properly appreciated." -- JSH, discussing his 1463rd "proof" of Fermat's Last Theorem.