Argument for the eradication of 2π
by Jessica Halsell

Over the course of history, usage of the definition of π has indicated the relationship between the diameter and the circumference of a circle, among other usages such as in trigonometry and calculus.  The question here put is why the importance is placed on the diameter as opposed to the radius of the circle.  The radius seems a far more rational number to utilize. 

The traditional definition in which π is used is C=πd (circumference of a circle equals pi times the diameter), which is equivalent to C=2πr, since the diameter of a circle is nothing more than a doubling of its radius.  Consider a circle for a moment:  an infinitely sided shape created by a single curve.  This is quite an intriguing entity, so it is understandable that the ancient Greeks wanted to learn its secrets.  However, what makes a circle so special is the center and the radius, which are the only two parts necessary to create one.  The diameter is merely an extension of the radius in order to divide a circle in half or to know the full width of a circle--as if multiplying by two were a difficult notion!  However, it would seem more sensible that the ratio to the radius be deemed the more relevant, important number, as opposed to the ratio to the diameter, an arbitrary measure of distance.

Once π was already corrupted, I suppose it makes sense that it remained as such, to avoid confusion.  As a result, trigonometry and calculus have developed with an added difficulty.  The period of a sinusoidal wave, and coordinately, the division of pi-radians in a unit circle, are affected by this unfortunate misdirection on the part of the early Greeks.  Both of these important mathematical phenomena are relegated to dealing with 2π as opposed to some alternate assignation that better fits the reality of the numerical realms.  A full period for sine, cosine, or tangent and their counterparts runs 2π when it might easily be said that ψ for example could represent this still-irrational number, but it would do so without all the messiness of having a useless 2 tacked in front of itself all of the time, like a constant reminder that thousands of years ago, someone made a mistake by dividing by two.

So, perhaps it is time to reconcile this absurdity with reality.  I vote that we carry out the multiplication and leave ourselves a nice happy reduction in characters to write whilst performing mathematical rigors.  Much as I have treasured our dear friend π over the years, reason (and perhaps a bit of slothfulness) compels me to push for the repentance of mathematicians for thus far maintaining this illusion that diameter is meaningful.  In the interest of modern mathematicians, whom I am assured are all as lazy and desirous of efficiency as I am, I hereby make the suggestion of a movement toward the final multiplication of pi by 2.  Let's call it ψ (psi).

Our newfound efficiency would be carried into geometry, trigonometry, calculus, and many other realms.  Maybe a happy little marketing campaign could be initiated bringing some spark back into the realm of mathematics (and perhaps a bit more funding and a refurbished building into the math departments at universities worldwide) with the propagation of psi.  You know what I say?  Go forth and multiply--and don't divide that 2 out again!

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

1	π  (pi) - Greek letter used to represent the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter; irrational number equal to 3.141592653589...

2	ψ  (psi) - Greek letter soon to be used to represent the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its radius as well as to define the period of a sinusoidal curve and the measure of radians in a unit circle; irrational number equal to 6.28318530717958646

3	As the old joke goes (and we can replace pi with psi now), "Pi to 9 digits is sufficient for calculating the known universe to the nearest atom.  Anything beyond that is mathsturbation."  Words of wisdom.