Why some mathematicians think we should abandon pi

May 5, 2026

4 min read

Add Us On GoogleAdd SciAm

Why some mathematicians think we should abandon pi

A growing minority believes it’s a mistake to tie so many mathematical formulas to the famed 3.14... value. Another value, tau, could be better

By Manon Bischoff edited by Daisy Yuhas

Antonio Iacobelli/Getty Images

Love math? Sign up for our weekly newsletter Proof PositiveEnter your email

I agree my information will be processed in accordance with the Scientific American and Springer Nature Limited Privacy Policy. We leverage third party services to both verify and deliver email. By providing your email address, you also consent to having the email address shared with third parties for those purposes.

Sign Up

This article is from Proof Positive, our friendly newsletter that explores the joys and peculiarities of math. Sign up today for a weekly math essay and puzzle in your email inbox.

“I know it will be called blasphemy by some, but I believe that π is wrong.” With this bold opening statement in a 2001 Mathematical Intelligencer article, mathematician Robert Palais launched a debate that continues to this day.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

For many, an attack on pi is tantamount to an attack on all of mathematics! Hardly any other symbol is so strongly associated with the subject. Songs, poems, books and films have been dedicated to pi. The date of the International Day of Mathematics, March 14, is based on the first digits of pi. It is all the more astonishing, then, that Palais has won over quite a few supporters.

Anyone who thinks this is a circle of people who despise mathematics is completely wrong. On the contrary, their passion for the subject drives them to such disruption.

To make one thing clear from the outset: no one in this debate doubts the correct calculation of pi. But Palais argues that it was wrong to choose the value 3.14159... as the fundamental constant of a circle. He believes it would be much more appropriate to use twice that value, a value now known as tau (τ).

Nine years after Palais’s article was published, physicist Michael Hartl posted “The Tau Manifesto” online. In it, he elaborated on and expanded upon Palais’s arguments. “π is a confusing and unnatural choice for the circle constant,” Hartl wrote.

Why Tau is Superior to Pi

The Tau Manifesto lists several reasons why a constant tau is more suitable than pi:

- In mathematics, the radius, not the diameter, is what defines a circle. Therefore, the mathematical constant pi should be defined in terms of its radius, and tau allows you to quickly do that. With it, the circumference of a circle is calculated as: C = τ × r.

- In trigonometry, we work with radians instead of degrees. A full rotation, or 360 degrees, corresponds to 2π—something that isn’t very intuitive. It would be much simpler if 360 degrees simply corresponded to the constant tau. Half a rotation, or 180 degrees, would then be τ ⁄ 2.

- A factor of 2π appears in numerous mathematical and physical formulas (as when calculating the period of a simple pendulum or that of a mass on a spring). These equations would all be simpler if we could use tau.

“What really worries me is that the first thing we broadcast to the cosmos to demonstrate our ‘intelligence,’ is 3.14...,” Palais wrote in his 2001 article. “I am a bit concerned about what the lifeforms who receive it will do after they stop laughing at creatures who must rarely question orthodoxy.” In the years following the publication of Palais’s article and Hartl’s manifesto, the topic attracted increasing media attention. Internet forums saw heated debates about which constant was superior, and in classrooms, some teachers and students began using tau instead of pi. Programmers, too, increasingly defined the constant tau as 2π in their code. “I hope that one day we will all be tauists,” Hartl said in a 2011 interview with Spektrum der Wissenschaft, which is Scientific American’s German-language sister publication.

Why Pi Is Superior to Tau

The arguments of the “Tau Manifesto” do not convince everyone, however. Quite a few experts remain convinced that pi is a constant. Shortly after Hartl’s proposal, “The Pi Manifesto” appeared (as you might expect). According to this manifesto, written by mathematician Michael Cavers, Hartl’s arguments were “full of selective bias in order to convince readers of the benefits of of τ over π.” In many cases, tau would bring more disadvantages than advantages, Cavers claimed. The Pi Manifesto lists