/sci/ - Science & Math

>kinda interested in, but sucked at math in high school
>awesome prof in college
><span class="math">e^{i\pi}+1=0[/spoiler]
>Fuck empirical science, this is what I'm doing for the rest of my life

>>2731290

That's actually pretty boring. It's just trig.

>civil engineering
>An industry representative is coming to give a speech at the university
>He spends 4 hours subtly telling us engineering is gay, we're retarded and management is where the money's at

e^iPi +1=0

THERE IS A GOD.

...and he's mocking us.

>>2731318
>>2731290

<span class="math">\displaystyle e^{i\pi}= -1[/spoiler]

Not so elegant now are we

Of course <span class="math">\varepsilon_0\mu_0c^2=1[/spoiler],
<span class="math">1\cdot1\cdot1^2=1[/spoiler]

>>2731323

>>2731306
It's amazing that those 3 constants are related in such a way, and are at the same time are all individually useful. Makes you wonder if our silly integer system is the abstract one and e i and pi are the "real" numbers.

>theoretical mechanics
>Hamilton's canonical equations in geometrical form
>motion of bodies defined completely by the constant geometry of our space and time
>universe is beautiful
>intro to general relativity
>NOPE

>>2731336
Not really. e and pi are irrational, which means they can never both be expressed rationally with ANY integer system.

i is in UNITS of our integer system.

>>2731336
It's not THAT fascinating. If you realize that you can define the exp() with few axioms two of which being that it doesn't change in differentiation and that exp(0) = 1, you get it's Taylor series expansion (I think that you'd have to prove it's analytical but it can be done or is not necessary, I'm not sure which one right now).
Now complex (or even real) exponentiation isn't obvious thing like in middle school with integers, so you have to define it. The obvious way is to just plug the argument to the Taylor series (then you prove it has all the nice qualities you expect of exponentiation)

e itself is defined as exp(1) using its Taylor series. Now if you plug ix into exp() and compare series expansions with sin and cos, you'll get Euler's identity.
All in all, it's result of the similarities between definitions of cos, sin, and exp. Sure, it's nice and useful but highschoolfags should stop obsessing over it.

>>2731269
so all I have to do is first introduce some some fucked up application oriented notation and then go back to natural units and an engeneer will jizz his pants?

>Use magnetic pulse on an almost dead neuron
>action potential fires up
>jizz my pants

>>2731330
Pretty sure he wasn't using normalized values.

>>2731330
loled