>then don't find it inelegant that his proof uses not a unit circle but a circle with a diameter of 1?
I don't know, do you find it elegant? It's like a goddamn footnote, that's the whole point!
For reference, you trotted out Euclid when you defined the circle. I only pointed out whom you referenced.
>And if you do find a few cases where π is super convenient (probably because you only care about half the rotation of something), feel free to substitute half tau. :)
yawn
It does go without saying that you won't read this post, doesn't it? You didn't read the previous one.
Really I've just tired of it today, and also had to cook dinner. :)
> You appealed to elegance and failed to show any.
You trot out Euler and then don't find it inelegant that his proof uses not a unit circle but a circle with a diameter of 1? Even as you also trot out Euclid who defines circles with radii? Fixing even just that is elegant.
And if you do find a few cases where π is super convenient (probably because you only care about half the rotation of something), feel free to substitute half tau. :)
The forest really is there, in addition to the trees.
But I really am done. Feel free to leave your last (I'm sure to be exceptionally) clever rebuttal for posterity.