On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
If we call that new number tau (t). Then Euler's identity becomes:
e^(t * i) = 1
There is no disputing matters of taste but I think the original
equation is more beautiful because it shows a relationship between 5 of the
most
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:59 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
If we call that new number tau (t). Then Euler's identity becomes:
e^(t * i) = 1
There is no disputing matters of taste but I think the original
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to see all the constants at once there is an easy
correction: e^(t*i) - 1 = 0
Then it has the additive identity but not the multiplicative identity
and I still prefer Euler's original.
What is the
1 is in the modified version I provided: e^(t*i) - 1 = 0
Unless you were reading that as e^(t*i) + (-1) = 0
Also, if the more important numbers that can be included, the more
beautiful you find the equation, we can also throw in 2, arguably the next
most important number: e^(2*t*i) - 1 = 0,
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
1 is in the modified version I provided: e^(t*i) - 1 = 0
I only see a -1. 1* X is always equal to X but -1*X is never equal to X
unless X=0.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:23 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
1 is in the modified version I provided: e^(t*i) - 1 = 0
I only see a -1. 1* X is always equal to X but -1*X is never equal to X
unless X=0.
On 08 Jul 2013, at 23:22, Johnathan Corgan wrote:
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
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the fact that e^i*PI +1 = 0 surprises almost everyone when they
first hear of it.
This one is very interesting, but the fact that Pi was a poor choice for
the constant makes the equation considerably more
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 2:20 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the fact that e^i*PI +1 = 0 surprises almost everyone when
they first hear of it.
This one is very interesting, but the fact that Pi
The use of the radius instead of diameter is historic and constructive: the
circumference was make by turning a rope or a compass a full turn instead
of turning a rigid stick half a turn around his center. The former is
easier.
2013/7/9 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013
I think the fact that e^i*PI +1 = 0 surprises almost everyone when they
first hear of it. I was surprised to learn that infinity times infinity is
just the same old infinity but 2 to the power of infinity yields a larger
infinity, and I was surprised to learn that there is a proof that some
things
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:07 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the fact that e^i*PI +1 = 0 surprises almost everyone when they
first hear of it.
This one is very interesting, but the fact that Pi was a poor choice for
the constant makes the equation considerably more ugly
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:
://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2949/which-one-result-in-maths-has-surprised-you-the-most
--
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
://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2013/06/22/whats-the-big-deal-with-hott/
2013/7/6 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2949/which-one-result-in-maths-has-surprised-you-the-most
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2949/which-one-result-in-maths-has-surprised-you-the-most
--
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
16 matches
Mail list logo