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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
