/sci/ - e^(i(pi)) = -1

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-07 17:52

discuss

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-07 17:58

Yep.

Yep.

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-07 19:02

in before bizarre claims from uneducated & philosophy crowd

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-07 19:28

>>3
Philosopher here.
e^(i(pi)) = cos(pi) + i * sin(pi) = -1 + I * 0 = -1
QED
I don't see how this is in anyway controversial...

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-09 9:43

>>4
you forgot to prove e^ix = cosx +isin.

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-09 9:52

>>5
Well, I was assuming that.

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-09 10:30

>>6
yeah, but you assumed that fact and showed
e^(i(pi)) = cos(pi) + i * sin(pi) = -1 + I * 0 = -1

I could assume many things and prove ridiculous stuff as well. gb2/philosophy/

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-09 11:16

>>7
That's not what I meant and you know it.
Maths relies on axioms anyway, but at a lower level.
What I assumed is that people knew how to derive
e^(i(X) = cos(X) + i * sin(X) from a fucking taylor series. Do you need me to explain how to do that, or do you need to take a year 11 maths course all over again?

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-09 11:21

>>8

You're an idiot. You can't rearrage the terms of an infinite sum where the signs of the term alternate. gb2/maths/

tip: for any real number L and any alterating series, you can rearrage the terms in the series so that the series converges to L.

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-09 12:06 (sage)

>>9

please to be learning absolute convergence

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-09 13:53

>>10
Just because it converges doesn't mean once you rearrage the terms in the series the limit is going to be the same. please be learning more about series.

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-09 16:40 (sage)

>>11
actually, it IS going to be the same if it converges absolutely. hth

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-09 18:11

>>5
are you going to confute e^ix = cos(x) + i sin(x) or what?

because I taught it in several math courses and if you're not going to at least *hint* that it might be controversial, I'm calling you a troll and moving along :-)

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-09 18:12 (sage)

^^^ I mean "I was taught it"

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-09 18:13

>>13

Yes, but you were using the result that someone might not be familar with, so it's only natural to ask to show a more detailed exploration.

Name: Stephen Hawking !GuxAK3zcH. 2006-03-10 13:28 (sage)

AABBBBBSSTTTRRRAACCCTT AAALLLLGGGGEEEBBRRRAAA

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-10 23:03

my head asplode

e^(i(pi)) = -1

1 Name: Anonymous 2006-03-07 17:52

2 Name: Anonymous 2006-03-07 17:58

3 Name: Anonymous 2006-03-07 19:02

4 Name: Anonymous 2006-03-07 19:28

5 Name: Anonymous 2006-03-09 9:43

6 Name: Anonymous 2006-03-09 9:52

7 Name: Anonymous 2006-03-09 10:30

8 Name: Anonymous 2006-03-09 11:16

9 Name: Anonymous 2006-03-09 11:21

10 Name: Anonymous 2006-03-09 12:06 (sage)

11 Name: Anonymous 2006-03-09 13:53

12 Name: Anonymous 2006-03-09 16:40 (sage)

13 Name: Anonymous 2006-03-09 18:11

14 Name: Anonymous 2006-03-09 18:12 (sage)

15 Name: Anonymous 2006-03-09 18:13

16 Name: Stephen Hawking !GuxAK3zcH. 2006-03-10 13:28 (sage)

17 Name: Anonymous 2006-03-10 23:03