Is the Notation for Inverse Functions Ambiguous?

  • Thread starter ebits21
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Pi
In summary, the conversation is about the debate between using pi or tau as the fundamental constant for trigonometry. Some argue that tau, which is equal to 2pi, makes more sense as it is more intuitive for understanding fractions and the unit circle. However, others argue that pi has historical significance and changing it would cause confusion. Some also point out that integrating tau into equations not involving circles would make it less intuitive. Ultimately, the conversation ends with some humorous anecdotes about mathematics.
  • #36
Theoretically...
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #37
jhae2.718 said:
Wait...cows aren't really spherical?

Just in case you haven't been aware:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
micromass said:
Well I certainly consider pi to be an unfortunate historic mistake. Math would be slightly more beautiful with tau. But this is the way it is and we need to stick with it.

Other unfortunate mistakes are the definition of the gamma function and the notation [tex]\subset[/tex] to mean subset or equal. But there's nothing we can do about those now...

Yes. Notations like sin^-1 are a bit ambiguous quite often.
 
  • #39
dimension10 said:
Yes. Notations like sin^-1 are a bit ambiguous quite often.

IMHO, it's the notation [itex]sin^n(x)=\left( sin(x) \right)^n[/itex] that is ambiguous, rather than inverse notation. In general, [itex]f^{-1}[/itex] is ubiquitously the inverse of f.
 

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
5K
Back
Top