Pi should be replaced with Tau.
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
ApostateAbe
Voting Style:  Open  Point System:  7 Point  
Started:  8/6/2011  Category:  Science  
Updated:  7 years ago  Status:  Post Voting Period  
Viewed:  4,727 times  Debate No:  17807 
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (23)
Votes (5)
Welcome to another quick debate and I wish my opponent luck.
I presume that "tau" is "2*pi" or 6.28... (http://mathblog.com...). The proposal is based on the point that it is confusing to some that one whole circle is twice pi radians and a quarter of a circle is half of pi. However, the costs outweigh that benefit, because (1) the transition would last for decades (or even centuries), and it would greatly complicate mathematical language, i.e. no button on current scientific calculators for tau. Students and professionals either need to learn that the angle of a circle is 2*pi or they'd be confused and prone to human error by conflicting mathematical language. Mistakes beween pi and tau can sink ships and disintegrate space crafts (ie Mars Climate Orbiter Mishap). 

Thanks to my opponent for engaging in this debate.
(1) pi – the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. It is equal to 3.14159 ... (2) tau – proposed to be the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its radius. It is equal to 6.28318 … Circumference of a circle is currently defined as 2πr, whereas area of a circle is defined as πr�. Similarities of these formulas easily result in transposition of the numeral 2, providing vastly different, and potentially dangerous, results. The use of a separate symbol for circumference reduces the possible incidence of errors. Scientific calc apps for Android™ and iPhone� are easily updated.(3) (1) http://tinyurl.com... (2) http://tauday.com... (3) http://tinyurl.com... The formulae C=2πr and A=πr² are very seldom used in the same context, and experienced math practitioners do not get the two formulae transposedr² obviously gives an area, and r with no exponent obviously gives only distance. The alterntive would be C=τr and A=(τr²)/2. A complicating fraction is introduced to the formula for A with translation from π to τ. But of course that wold be the least of the problems. Any time mathematical terms are translated, a potential for blunders is introduced, and the extra blunder vulnerability is roughly proportional to the number of mathematical steps [1]. [1] WL Oberkampf et al. "Verification, validation, and predictive capability in computational engineering and physics," Appl. Mech. Rev., Sept 2004. 
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by randolph7 7 years ago
imscrappy  ApostateAbe  Tied  

Agreed with before the debate:      0 points  
Agreed with after the debate:      0 points  
Who had better conduct:      1 point  
Had better spelling and grammar:      1 point  
Made more convincing arguments:      3 points  
Used the most reliable sources:      2 points  
Total points awarded:  2  3 
Reasons for voting decision: .
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
imscrappy  ApostateAbe  Tied  

Agreed with before the debate:      0 points  
Agreed with after the debate:      0 points  
Who had better conduct:      1 point  
Had better spelling and grammar:      1 point  
Made more convincing arguments:      3 points  
Used the most reliable sources:      2 points  
Total points awarded:  0  3 
Reasons for voting decision: Silly debate, designed that way by Pro.
Vote Placed by VocMusTcrMaloy 7 years ago
imscrappy  ApostateAbe  Tied  

Agreed with before the debate:      0 points  
Agreed with after the debate:      0 points  
Who had better conduct:      1 point  
Had better spelling and grammar:      1 point  
Made more convincing arguments:      3 points  
Used the most reliable sources:      2 points  
Total points awarded:  0  3 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments for keeping the status quo were much more persuasive. Pro, although he mentioned ease of adding button to calculators, did not rebut the idea that such a change would be so complicated it could result in tragic error. Because Pro did not organize the debate, he gave his opponent an extra round. If he had organized the debate making the first round acceptance only, and Con made arguments in that round, I could have awarded Pro the conduct pointas is, Pro hurt himself.
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 7 years ago
imscrappy  ApostateAbe  Tied  

Agreed with before the debate:      0 points  
Agreed with after the debate:      0 points  
Who had better conduct:      1 point  
Had better spelling and grammar:      1 point  
Made more convincing arguments:      3 points  
Used the most reliable sources:      2 points  
Total points awarded:  0  6 
Reasons for voting decision: .
Vote Placed by larztheloser 7 years ago
imscrappy  ApostateAbe  Tied  

Agreed with before the debate:      0 points  
Agreed with after the debate:      0 points  
Who had better conduct:      1 point  
Had better spelling and grammar:      1 point  
Made more convincing arguments:      3 points  
Used the most reliable sources:      2 points  
Total points awarded:  0  3 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro demonstrated a harm from the present arrangement, although I wasn't convinced that the harm was significant (some examples would be good here). Con countered by saying the risk of error was too great, which could have devastating results (yay for examples). Because pro didn't demonstrate a massive impetus to change our symbols and con did show that there was significant potential for mistake, the motion falls. Neg win.
A=(pi)r(squared) and C=(tau)r
There are several people on this site that dock points but do not know what is proper to give or take points away for.