tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32480996.post6127285439961593972..comments2023-10-03T06:00:43.293-07:00Comments on I Am Mike D: Pi Day OpinionMike D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00231247645445587881noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32480996.post-87448100772162259872009-03-15T16:23:00.001-07:002009-03-15T16:23:00.001-07:00Oops, it's Alex.Oops, it's Alex.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32480996.post-1041663187086309982009-03-15T16:23:00.000-07:002009-03-15T16:23:00.000-07:00Hey very cool post. I had no idea that some peopl...Hey very cool post. I had no idea that some people thought about possibly re-defining PI as 2PI.<BR/><BR/>I think his article title would be more accurate if he said, "Pi is defined wrong!"....although not as catchy. Which is funny since one reason he's advocating a new (hypothetical) definition is because it's more intuitive, but his title, if stood alone, would maybe suggest an error in PI's numerical value.<BR/><BR/>I personally hate using diameter for anything, but I probably am in the minority. Almost everything circular is specified/described by diameter (as far as I know).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com