)pinio~
I k n o w it will be called b l a s p h e m y b y
Is Wrong!
Bob Palais
The Opinion column offers
mathematicians the opportunity to
write about any issue of interest to
the international mathematical
community. Disagreement and
controversy are welcome. The views
and opinions expressed here, however,
are exclusively those of the author,
and neither the publisher nor the
editor-in-chief endorses or accepts
responsibility for them. An Opinion
should be submitted to the editor-in-
chief, Chandler Davis.
rr radians, a n d so on. The o p p o r t u n i t y
some, b u t I believe that ~r is wrong.
F o r c e n t u r i e s ~r has r e c e i v e d tmlimited
praise; m a t h e m a t i c i a n s have w a x e d
r h a p s o d i c a b o u t its mysteries, u s e d it
as a s y m b o l for m a t h e m a t i c s s o c i e t i e s
and m a t h e m a t i c s in general, a n d built
it into c a l c u l a t o r s a n d p r o g r a m m i n g
languages. Even a movie h a s b e e n
n a m e d after it.* I a m not questioning
its irrationality, t r a n s c e n d e n c e , o r nu-
m e r i c a l calculation, b u t the c h o i c e o f
the n u m b e r on which w e b e s t o w a sym-
b o l conveying d e e p g e o m e t r i c signifi-
cance. The p r o p e r value, w h i c h d o e s
d e s e r v e all o f the r e v e r e n c e a n d adu-
lation b e s t o w e d u p o n the c u r r e n t im-
postor, is t h e n u m b e r n o w unfortu-
n a t e l y k n o w n as 2rr.
I d o n o t n e c e s s a r i l y feel t h a t ~r can
o r even s h o u l d b e c h a n g e d o r r e p l a c e d
with an alternative (though I've b y n o w
r e c e i v e d s o m e g o o d suggestions!), b u t
it is w o r t h w h i l e to recognize t h e reper-
c u s s i o n s o f t h e error as a w a r n i n g and
a l e s s o n in choosing g o o d n o t a t i o n a l
c o n v e n t i o n s to c o m m u n i c a t e m a t h e -
m a t i c a l ideas. I c o m p a r e the p r o b l e m
to w h a t w o u l d have o c c u r r e d if
L e o n h a r d Euler h a d defined e to be
.3678... (the natural d e c a y f a c t o r equal
to ~
1 . .
) m which case t h e r e w o u l d
b e j u s t a s m a n y unfortunate minus signs
running a r o u n d from that choice as
there are factors of 2 from ~r = 3 . 1 4 . . .
The m o s t significant c o n s e q u e n c e
o f the m i s d e f m i t i o n o f ~- is for early
geometry and trigonometry students
w h o a r e told b y m a t h e m a t i c i a n s that
r a d i a n m e a s u r e is m o r e n a t u r a l t h a n
degree m e a s u r e . In a s e n s e it is, since
a q u a r t e r of a circle is m o r e naturally
m e a s u r e d b y 1 . 5 7 . . . than b y 90. Un-
fortunately, this beautiful i d e a is sabo-
t a g e d b y t h e fact t h a t ~r isn't 6 . 2 8 . . . ,
which w o u l d m a k e a quarter o f a cir-
cle o r a quadrant equal to a q u a r t e r of
9r radians; a third of a circle, a third o f
*For a non-technical movie, the mathematics was surprisingly good, except for the throwaway question "Surely
you've tried all of the 216-digit numbers?" At one number per nanosecond, checking all 30-digit numbers
would take longer than the life of the universe!
9 2001 SPRINGER-VERLAGNEW YORK, VOLUME23, NUMBER3, 2001
to i m p r e s s s t u d e n t s with a beautiful
and n a t u r a l simplification is t u r n e d
into an a b s u r d e x e r c i s e in memoriza-
tion a n d dogma. An enlightening anal-
ogy is to leave c l o c k s the w a y they are
b u t define an h o u r to b e 30 minutes. In
t h a t case, 15 m i n u t e s o r a q u a r t e r of a
clock w o u l d i n d e e d b e called half an
hour, j u s t as a q u a r t e r o f a circle is half
o f ~r in m a t h e m a t i c s ! Even mathemati-
cally s o p h i s t i c a t e d s o f t w a r e p a c k a g e s
p r e f e r to use 90 ~ to indicate a quarter-
circle rotation. We c a n ' t really b l a m e
t h e m for t h e fact t h a t ~r is wrong.
P e r h a p s m o r e convincing to mathe-
maticians is the litany o f i m p o r t a n t the-
o r e m s a n d f o r m u l a s into w h i c h this
ubiquitous f a c t o r o f 2 has c r e p t a n d
p r o p a g a t e d : C a u c h y ' s integral f o r m u l a
and F o u r i e r series formulas all begin
1
with 2~, Stirling's a p p r o x i m a t i o n and
the G a u s s i a n n o r m a l distribution b o t h
c a r r y it, the Gauss-Bonnet a n d Picard
t h e o r e m s have t h e m a r k o f 2~-.
( A r c h i m e d e s s h o w e d that the a r e a of
the unit s p h e r e is t h e a r e a of t h e cylin-
d e r of t h e s a m e r a d i u s and height, o r
twice the c i r c u m f e r e n c e of the unit cir-
cle: 4~r = 2(2qr).) The blight o f factors
o f 2 even affects physics, for e x a m p l e
in MaxweU's equations (Gauss's law,
Amp~re's law, C o u l o m b ' s c o n s t a n t )
h
and P l a n c k ' s c o n s t a n t ~ . Euler's for-
m u l a should b e e i " = 1 (or e i~z2 = - 1 ,
in which c a s e it involves one m o r e fun-
d a m e n t a l constant, 2, t h a n before).
W o u l d n ' t it be n i c e r if the p e r i o d s
o f the f u n d a m e n t a l circular functions
cos a n d sin w e r e ~ - r a t h e r t h a n 2~r?.
Wouldn't it b e n i c e r if half-plane inte-
grals such a s the Hilbert t r a n s f o r m
w e r e i n d i c a t e d b y t h e appearance of a
factor o f 2 r a t h e r t h a n its d i s a p p e a r -
ance?
The s u m o f t h e interior angles o f a
triangle is qr, granted. But the s u m of
the exterior angles o f any polygon,
7
 sin(x + w) = sin(x)
e i'~ = 1
n! ~ v /-~r-nn n e - n
1 2
A = -~mr
h b e e n d i s c u s s e d previously, b u t I w a s
h_.~B
7ff
71r
T=--
03
1
90 ~ = - m r a d i a n s - a quadrant
4 ple t h a t ~- has a flaw, their r e a c t i o n s
Cn = -- f ( x ) e in= dx
7K
1 [ f ( z ) dz
f(a) =
Jc z - a
i // e_89 dx 1 ameter. David Gregory (1697) u s e d r
7"K oo
The nth roots of unity: e - , j = 0,..., n - 1
The author's father, thinking that the formulas with ~ = 6.28 looked more wrong than sim-
pler, constructed a macro in which he combined two pi's with their adjacent "legs" tied to-
gether as in a three-legged race! The formulas above use that symbol.
from which the s u m o f the interior an- c o n s i d e r w h a t the unit circle means. If
gles can easily b e derived, and which it weren't, I w o u l d agree t h a t the tra-
generalizes to the integral o f the cur- ditional choice o f zr w a s right.'
vature of a s i m p l e c l o s e d curve, is 2r Of c o u r s e you m a y s a y t h a t n o n e o f
The natural f o r m u l a for a r e a of a cir- this really m a t t e r s o r affects t h e math-
1 1
cle, ~ - r , 2 h a s t h e familiar ring o f ~gt 2 ematics, b e c a u s e w e m a y d e f i n e things
1 2
o r ~mv ; it w o u l d have instilled g o o d h o w e v e r w e like; a n d that is correct.
habits for r e p r e s e n t i n g quadratic quan- But the analogy with e m e n t i o n e d
tities and f o r e s h a d o w e d the connec- above, o r the i d e a o f redefining the
tion b e t w e e n the a r e a of a circle a n d s y m b o l i to m e a n - Z - s h o w s the true
the integral o f c i r c u m f e r e n c e (with re- folly of yr. Neither o f t h e s e c h a n g e s
s p e c t to radius) b e t t e r than zrr 2. w o u l d change the m a t h e m a t i c s , but
A n o t h e r w a y o f putting it is that r a d i u s n o r w o u l d anyone d e n y t h e y are ab-
is far m o r e c o n v e n i e n t than d i a m e t e r - - surd.
tpi: A Source Book, L, Berggren, J. Borwein, P. 8orwein. Springer-Vedag, New York 2000, p. 292,
8 THE MATHEMATICALINTELLIGENCER
What really w o r r i e s m e is t h a t t h e
first thing w e b r o a d c a s t to the c o s m o s
to d e m o n s t r a t e our "intelligence," is
3.14 . . . . I a m a bit c o n c e r n e d a b o u t
w h a t the lifeforms w h o r e c e i v e it will
d o after t h e y s t o p laughing at c r e a t u r e s
w h o m u s t rarely question orthodoxy.
Since it is t r a n s m i t t e d in binary, w e c a n
h o p e t h a t t h e y overlook w h a t b e c o m e s
m e r e l y a bit shift!
I w o u l d n o t be s u r p r i s e d a n d w o u l d
be i n t e r e s t e d to h e a r if this i d e a h a s
unable to fmd any r e f e r e n c e either in
the w o n d e r f u l Pi: A Source Book b y
Lennart Berggren, J o n a t h a n Borwein,
and P e t e r Borwein, o r in P e t r Beck-
m a n n ' s A History of Pi, o r o n t h e
Internet. W h e n I have s u g g e s t e d to p e o -
range from surprise, a m u s e m e n t , a n d
agreement, to "Of course, I k n e w it all
along," to dismissal, to indignation.
The history t (I was surprised, along
with everyone I tell, that the s y m b o l was
not in use in ancient Greece): Oughtred
used the s y m b o l ~r/S in 1647 for the ra-
tio o f the p e r i p h e r y of a circle to its di-
for the ratio o f the periphery o f a circle
to its radius. The first to use ~- as w e use
it n o w w a s a Welsh mathematician,
William Jones, in 1706 w h e n he stated
3.14159 &c. = ~-. Euler, who h a d until
then b e e n using the letters p a n d c,
a d o p t e d the symbol in 1737, leading to
its universal acceptance. If only he or
Jones h a d set Gregory's p to b e 1 instead
of Oughtred's t~, our formulas t o d a y
would b e m u c h m o r e elegant a n d clear.
Acknowledgments
Many t h a n k s to J a m e s Tucker, Nelson
Beebe, Bill Bynum, Wayne Burleson,
Micah G o o d m a n , and Carolyn Connell
for t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n s to this paper.
Robert Palais
21485 Wyoming Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84109
USA
e-mail: palais@math.utah.edu