e^(i*pi)

[Braydz]

I actually understood all of that...

Is all of this uni/college level maths? I'm still in high school... Also, curious... Do those equations of sine and cosine work with both radians and degrees, or only one? Never seen sine and cosine shown that way before.

[GuidoHunter]

All calculus is done in radians, and yes, this is Cal II stuff.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[hatakikakashi]

(It seems as you are just finding a way to rid yourself of the 'i', thus attempting to find a way to legally multiply by zero.)
I know I am looking at this from outside the equation, but still...

I always thought that the rule was that you can't divide by zero. 50 multpied by zero equals (zero) 50 divided by zero equals (your not allowed to do that)

I never understood why you can't do that. Also all this math is beyond me so I'll shut up now.

[GuidoHunter]

I always thought that the rule was that you can't divide by zero. 50 multpied by zero equals (zero) 50 divided by zero equals (your not allowed to do that)

I never understood why you can't do that. Also all this math is beyond me so I'll shut up now.

See my post after that.

If you want to understand why you can't divide by zero, just look at limits. Since you can always make a number smaller and smaller, you'll never end, which is why there is no answer to dividing by zero.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Braydz]

When I think of dividing by zero, I just think of the unit circle. tan(pi/2) is undefined as tan(x) = sin(x)/cos(x), which would result in tan(pi/2) = 1/0. Now, as far as I was taught, the tan function is basically the length of the hypotenuse from the origin to a tangent running vertically from the point (1,0). If the hypotenuse is going up vertically from (0,0), they will never meet, or somehow meet at infinity. That is why a graph of tan(x) has asymptotets at pi/2 adding or subtracting any normal number of pi. The graph flies upwards, approaching infinite. And when you think of it, there is no number of 0's that can go into any number. Is infinite a real number?

Sorry if I didn't make any sense, I am trying to remember something my specialist maths teacher told me at the end of last year. The fact that I am also a "young" maths student doesn't help, along with the fact that I have trouble explaining myself. If anyone can please correct my foggy memory here, please do.

[HamHack]

wow.i didn't retain any of that.hmm.

[jimerax]

I actually understood all of that...

Is all of this uni/college level maths? I'm still in high school... Also, curious... Do those equations of sine and cosine work with both radians and degrees, or only one? Never seen sine and cosine shown that way before.

It's definitely high school level math.

[bigsleytheoaf]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

PS - Math is a model. The statement e^(pi * i) = -1 has to do with an analytic extension of the exponential function onto the complex plane. There's no way to "prove" it just like there's no way to "prove" the axiom of choice (well, they're kind of different - you can prove existence and uniqueness of such an extension...) Kind of like, you know how 3! = 6? Well you can extend it analytically to the gamma function so that you can "have statements like" (3/2)! = sqrt(pi) and definitions of factorials with non-integral negative domain. But they're not "true," they're just "defined extensions."

PPS - Talking about math casually is like talking about sex casually. It's the past time of virgins. I guess maybe it just gets me a little irritated when people are like "oh the wonder of math" when they haven't even studied basic Real Analysis. It also gets me irritated when people talk about physics without understanding it and chemistry without understanding it and everything without understanding it, where "understanding it" means getting a Ph.D. in it at a first or second-tier university. There's alot to understand out there, so much so that there's little use in pretending to understand. Blah blah blah I'm tired you suck donk.

PPPS - This is in reference to Kefit's "proof," by the way...

[hatakikakashi]

My head hurts I don't get it. I need more schooling.

[alainbryden]

where "understanding it" means getting a Ph.D. in it at a first or second-tier university.

Don't be an ass. Only uptight pricks think the only way to know what you're talking about is to have a standardised education.

What Kefit brilliantly showed is commonly known, in mathimatical terms, as a proof, so don't be putting quotations like he did something wrong.


Kefit, that was awesome. I envy your grasp of mathematics. I'm still working really hard to keep up with second term calc.

[bigsleytheoaf]

hmm

Why don't you "prove" that 1+1 = 2?
Can you do this?
A very careful inspection of what "proof" means will show you that Kufit didn't "prove" anything. Alot of people get hung up on silly things like:

0/0 = 1

???

You can define it that way, and you can "prove" it, but to do so requires that you change the whole of your mathematical apparatus around it.

Whatever.

Hey, isn't the theory of relativity awesome?
How about those quantum physics?

-BigsleyTheOaf

[Braydz]

RE: hmm

Ok then, if you are such a know-all, why not share some of your knowledge with us?

[Kefit]

Re: hmm

Hey, isn't the theory of relativity awesome?
How about those quantum physics?

-BigsleyTheOaf

Hi.

I can go on about both of those subjects, and have done it before on these boards.

Anyway, what is your point? Of course I didn't really "prove" anything - my proof only works in the modern and widely accepted model for both mathematics and numbers, both of which, from an objective standpoint, are fairly arbitrary. It is true that this proof doesn't work in other mathematical models, but I don't think that anyone here is really concerned with those.

Besides, it is impossible to prove anything absolutely in this world. It is generally accepted that when people say they are proving something, that they are proving it within a given widely accepted model. Will this cut it in Ph.D level math and physics? Probably not, but I don't need to worry about that yet.

[blahblah18]

RE: Re: hmm

hey Dicktard... I've proved that 1+1=2 .. it is a rather complicated proof actually, a little over 2 pages long. So yeah, try and grow a brain champ.

Also 0/0 does not = 1
0/0 = indeterminant, which means that it represents some answer, but that it can not be determined without other information, whereas
x/0 = undefined

Btw, I assume with safety that
A) you don't have a PHD at any university let alone a good one
B) you probably aren't in college
C) you're so much dumber then I am that I should just pity you.

[hatakikakashi]

RE: Re: hmm

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH