On 07/08/2013 02:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > This one is very interesting, but the fact that Pi was a poor choice for > the constant makes the equation considerably more ugly than it should > be. There is a growing movement to usurp the number Pi with the much > more important constant "2*Pi" > (see: http://www.math.utah.edu/~palais/pi.html ). If we call that new > number tau (t). Then Euler's identity becomes: > > e^(t * i) = 1
I think part of the appeal of the original formulation is realizing that the result of an exponentiation of a positive number can be a negative number. While this is unremarkable with complex exponents, many people are only used to seeing real (or even just integer) exponents. Johnathan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
