Talk:Turn (angle)

message: I cannot find any other references for this.  While Hoyle may have proposed this, he also proposed lots of other things that aren't notable. -- Nike 17:38, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Others than Hoyle 

message: FWIW I didn't explain it very well, but the form of Euler's identity:
e^{i \tau} = 1 (+ 0) 
Is equivalent to saying that a single turn is an identity operation. -Rememberway (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To me the big problem with the text removed here is that it just throws out a formula. It doesn't explain what complex exponentiation has to do with rotation (or identity), or even that rotation and full turns are involved here. (The +0 is particularly hard to fit into an encyclopedia—even the tau day manifesto calls it "somewhat tongue-in-cheek"). Kingdon (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's much more important that e^{ik\tau} = 1 for any integer k. The "+0" is unnecessary just like how the "+1=0" part of the original identity was unnecessarily trying to fit more constants into the equation, and it made more sense as just e^{i\pi} = -1. And anyone who understands Euler's identity should know that it is referring to rotation (as if e^{ix} = cos(x) + i sin(x) wasn't explicit enough). The exponential of any integer multiple of the imaginary circle constant is the multiplicative identity in the complex plane. Or in other words, "a rotation by tau is one." Simple and elegant. Important and should definitely be mentioned on this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.56.202 (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Euler's" identity 

message: This  animated gif has a critical error that undermines its entire point.  I'll go into more detail on it's talk page.
 Galhalee (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circle radians tau.gif 

message: Why are the tau proposals discussed here at all? What evidence is there of WP:NOTABILITY? Why is this not WP:FRINGE?
Hartl's Tau Manifesto is self-published. In Google Scholar, it gets a total of 18 citations, almost all from unpublished papers. --Macrakis (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It’s a compromise. There were some who wanted a whole article on the Tau promoted by Hartl etc., others who thought it did not belong and sought its deletion. In the end it was decided to not have a standlone article, but to merge it into other articles where it made sense. This Talk:Tau (proposed mathematical constant)/Archive 3 is I think the most recent discussion.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Largely it's because the proposal is ultimately correct. I mean the table is stupid when written it Tau because 1/393 turn is tau/393. It simplifies things to the point that it makes the article seem utterly superfluous. While the proposal does need more notoriety it does have being correctness on it's side. Tat (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is less here than meets the eye.  There is an occasional paper that uses τ, but no mainstream (or reliable) paper discusses τ.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: One might almost conjecture that τ is less under scrutiny than feet, Farenheit, pound, ... are. Sorry for sucking inappropriate fun from such discussions. Purgy (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  If a unit or mathematical constant were commonly used, it might be difficult to find an article about it.  I don't think this is the problem finding reliable sources about τ.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

text:  "the proposal is ultimately correct. I mean the table is stupid when written [with] Tau" ← holy shit yes this, so much. Jikybebna (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

text: It is probably one of the reasons it hasn't become popular. As one of the main problems in mathematics is that there are not enough letters in the alphabets, I expect proponents of tau to use pi for something other than tau/2. —Kusma (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

text: \pi is used for (e.g.) permutations and the prime counting function. According to your logic, \pi is an unfortunate choice as well. :) A1E6 (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: At least I've never had occasion to use either of those senses in the same context as the angle! —Tamfang (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Why tau?

message: This section Turn_(angle)#Kinematics_of_turns should be removed from this article.  Nothing in it has anything to do with the unit of angle that this article is about (nor is any of it actually about kinematics).  The first and third paragraphs are about mathematical representations of rotations.  The second is about the fact that a certain book uses the word "turn" to refer to points on the unit circle.  (Incidentally, the only reference in the section is that book itself.)  When I boldly removed the section, I was reverted by .  Hence me soliciting opinions here. Danstronger (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kinematics of turns 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Cyclus (geometry) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 6#Cyclus (geometry) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  eviolite (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cyclus (geometry)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I've implemented the above proposal in angular displacement and in rotational frequency. Now, only angular frequency needs to be updated; its animation would need a correction: "Rotation (in radians)" should be "Angle (in radians)". I've also moved some long quotes around, including from revolutions per minute. Finally, I've made an addendum in Turn (unit) about the special names for the dimensionless unit (1rev=1 and 1=1rad) as given in old ISO 80000-3:2006. fgnievinski (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the GIF animation (File_talk:AngularFrequency.gif) and also the article on Angular frequency. fgnievinski (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Related articles