> From: Veoler <[log in to unmask]> > Alex Fink wrote: > > And for what it's worth, if you want to give a name to one of these circular > > numbers, two pi is the most natural one (being the actual period of the > > imaginary exponential, etc.); it's by historical accident that half two pi > > is the one we've bestowed a name on. Have you given thought to this? > > Not really. I haven't worked with complex numbers in the polar form. > But isn't that less concrete (i.e. less accessible to an illiterate > people) than wheels and such things which uses half two pi? > > -- > Veoler I think this depends on the hypothetical peasant-engineer's perspective. If they want to know how far a wheel will travel for a single rotation based on the length of the spokes, that's roughly twopi x spoke length (i.e., 2pi-r). If they want to know how far a wheel will travel based on how wide it is, that's pi x widest point (i.e., pi-d). So either could be used (although 22/7 x widest point is more accurate, 44/7 x [spoke length + fudge factor] is easier to measure). -- Paul