# Will we ever replace pi with tau? [closed]

A new circle constant is being promoted mainly here. the proposal is to have a new constant $\tau = 2\pi=6.28...$ to replace the familiar $\pi$.

One of the claimed benefits is that it will make reasoning about angles easier for students. Additionally a ratio of the radius to the circumference seems more 'natural' than a ratio of the diameter to circumference.

A numer of viral video like this offer a compelling case for the change, at least to a layman.

Is there any momentum for this change with in the professional community? Will we ever see tau in our textbooks. Who here celebrates Tauday (28th June)?

-

## closed as not constructive by Austin Mohr, Brian M. Scott, Asaf Karagila, Cameron Buie, Henning MakholmOct 13 '12 at 19:45

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

I’m voting to close: this really has nothing much to do with mathematics. The short answer, however, is no. –  Brian M. Scott Oct 13 '12 at 19:42
While the $2$ is annoying in a lot of formulas, lets face it, it is still only a $2$ that you multiply with your formula so that's not a big deal. So the advantage is slim. The disadvantage however is huge because the publishers bring out new editions for pretty much every math related publication with the updated $\pi$. Only the publishers are happy about that... –  Peter Sheldrick Oct 13 '12 at 19:47
"One of the claimed benefits is that it will make reasoning about circles easier for students." This doesn't make any sense. –  student Oct 13 '12 at 19:52
On the other hand the physicists managed to make a course correction in time and write all their formulas with $\hbar$ instead of $h$. But they noticed their original mistake before $h$ had gotten nearly as large a traction in textbooks and papers as $\pi$ has. –  Henning Makholm Oct 13 '12 at 19:59