[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 11 KB, 864x216, EulerId.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2050104 No.2050104 [Reply] [Original]

Why e?

Why π?

Why is our entire universe controlled by two such fucking weird numbers?

>> No.2050117

Define pi as 1 and base all other numbers around that.

There, now pi isn't so weird anymore is it?

>> No.2050116

Doesn't know how math works or what math is.
[spoilers] e^(i*pi) = -1 no matter what the fuck the universe is like. [/spoilers]

>> No.2050132

>>2050116
>>Doesn't know how spoiler tags work
[spoiler] [s poiler] [/ s p oiler] [/spoiler

>> No.2050131

>>2050117

Except then all the natural numbers are really fucking weird.

>> No.2050137

>>2050132

this is known as spoiler's identity

>> No.2050136

e is named after Euler

pi is the first letter of the greek word for perimeter

>> No.2050143
File: 56 KB, 351x336, 1287923226034.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2050143

>>2050132
> Doesn't know that this is /sci/.

>> No.2050144

>>2050132
knew i would screw that up. feel free to mock me

>> No.2050179

>>2050144
Spoiler tags of any form don't work on /sci/. We put them in as jokes sometimes.

>> No.2050187

>>2050117
you can't define pi as 1 as they are two different numbers. If you use the pi symbol to mean 1, you just have to use a different symbol to mean pi, and in the final analysis you are just retarded.

>> No.2050197

>>2050187 You can't define 1001 as 9 as they are two different numbers.

Lulz. You don't understand the basic concept of mathematics.

>> No.2050202

>>2050187
They meant converting our base 10 numbers to base pi. You can do it, trust me.

Binary is base 2.
Pinary must be base pi.

>> No.2050203

>>2050187
Wrong.

If all numbers were defined by their proportionality to pi then 1 would become 0.31831...

Deal with it.

>> No.2050207

>>2050104


Because of the definition of euler's formula, and the definition of the trig functions, and the definition of pi.

There is nothing in this equation that makes it "weirder" than 1+2=3

The only difference between the two is that you learned one at an early age, and the other at an older age.

>> No.2050214

>>2050207
This.

>> No.2050217

>>2050202

But in pinary 1=/= (Base 10) 3.14....

It would be 10= (Base 10) 3.14...

I also really want to start doing everything in pinary.

>> No.2050226

>>2050214

You know, I actually said virtually the same thing in another sci topic and someone actually raged at me.

>> No.2050233

>>2050226
A lot of people think mathematics is some magical code written into the fabric of the universe. Some of them I suppose don't want to hear otherwise.

>> No.2050234

Lets just say you start, at (1,0), on the complex plane. You rotate 180 degrees around the imaginary axis and you get to (-1,0). Then you add one and go to (0,0).

>> No.2050242

How did anyone arrive at the realization that e to any power would make a circle? I think that's the underlying question here. Could you prove it on your own?

You know that e^(i*0) = e^0 = 1.
You know that e^(i*360) = e^(i*0) = e^0 = 1, if you define that number as an angle.
After that, other values have to follow.

But pi^(i*0) = e^(i*0), so I don't know how I could have arrived at e.

>> No.2050253
File: 25 KB, 921x606, picard-facepalm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2050253

>>2050242 e^(i*360)

>>360

LOLOLOLOLOLO

>> No.2050266

>>2050253
Degrees aren't wrong, you know. While you're bitching about my notation, I'm addressing the issue. Get over it.

>> No.2050279

>>2050266
Degrees are wrong when you do this: e^(i*360) = e^(i*0)

>> No.2050285

>>2050197
You're a fucking retard. 1 is the same number in every base.

>> No.2050278

>>2050242
>>2050266

Such fail.

>> No.2050290

>>2050285

Base .5

>> No.2050293

>>2050279

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=e^(i*360%C2%B0)

>> No.2050296

>>2050285
Nope.
Only when some natural number is used as the base.

>> No.2050300

>>2050202
It doesn't matter what base you use,
e^(i*pi)=negative one
Retards gonna retard.

>> No.2050312

>>2050293

Nice, but you didn't put degrees. Try to work with a little more precision next time. I'm not saying that to be a dick, but if you don't, little details are going to trip you up and you'll come up with incorrect answers. It's very easy to do in math.

>> No.2050313

>>2050233
The universe has nothing to do with it. Mathematics is written into the fabric of logic.

>> No.2050331

>>2050290
Please do explain how you count in base .5.
Fucking retard.

>> No.2050345

>>2050331

Just because you aren't counting with the natural numbers does not mean that you cannot count.

Such as when you count by fives, or by .5s

>> No.2050347

>>2050331

enjoy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-integer_representation

>> No.2050359

>>2050345
You do not know what number bases are. Absolute fucking retard.

>> No.2050365

>>2050331

Jesus Christ. Settle down and think before you question whether or not mathematics, hell or any branch of science, coincides with your common sense.

>> No.2050380

>>2050359

#1 You are extremely angry. Try dislodging the cock from your ass.

#2 The post you quoted was not a good way of putting it, but it doesn't make my other post any less true.

>> No.2050385

Because complex plane

>> No.2050388

>>2050347
That only works for bases >1 fucktard.

>> No.2050394 [DELETED] 

>>2050388

Copy pasted:

Base √2

Base √2 behaves in a very similar way to base 2 as all one has to do to convert a number from binary into base √2 is put a zero digit in between every binary digit; for example, 191110 = 111011101112 becomes 101010001010100010101√2 and 511810 = 10011111111102 becomes 1000001010101010101010100√2. This means that every integer can be expressed in base √2 without the need of a decimal point. The base can also be used to show the relationship between the side of a square to its diagonal as a square with a side length of 1√2 will have a diagonal of 10√2 and a square with a side length of 10√2 will have a diagonal of 100√2. Another use of the base is to show the silver ratio as its representation in base √2 is simply 11√2.

>> No.2050427

>>2050388

Oh, he mad. He definitely mad.

>> No.2050436

>>2050388
Nope. No matter what number you choose there is still a 0 to represent its absence.

Here's some base 1/2 math
X = 1/2

0. 5 (base10) = X (base0.5)
0. 25(base10) = X0 (base0.5)
2 (base10) = 0.X(base 0.5)

>> No.2050452

>>2050388
Base 1/2 is actually pretty simple. Since its a rational number, all that will happen is that the decimals are reverse, since (1/2)^-1 = 2 that means that the decimal increases from left to right rather than from right to left.

Everything will be backwards, but it is still doable.

>> No.2050465

>>2050388


Do you realize that what your saying means that you cannot have numbers less than one in any non-decimal system?

>> No.2050470

What about Base 0?
Fags.

>> No.2050477

>>2050470
Use zero as a power.

>> No.2050529

>>2050436
>>2050452
No, sorry, you cannot have a fucking base less than 1.

Even if you can represent every positive rational number as (1/2)^x, ignoring the fact that you now have no way to represent negative numbers, you also happen to have no fucking rule determining what digits you can use. Is 541 a valid number in base 1/2? How about FFF? Using any existing numeral logic, there's only one valid number in base 1/2, and that is 0, as you can't have digits greater than your fucking base.

>> No.2050540

>>2050529
> no way to represent negative numbers
<span class="math">all x \le 0[/spoiler]

>> No.2050544

>>2050529
>ignoring the fact that you now have no way to represent negative numbers

WTFAMIREADING.JPG


Stop trying bro, please.

>> No.2050546

How can you have a non-integerial base? When you specify a base, aren't you specifying the number of different digits that can be in a given place? You can't have 2.5 digits to choose from

>> No.2050579 [DELETED] 

>>2050546

Count by .5s fixes this problem.

0,.5,1,1.5,2,10,10.5,11,11.5,12,20,20.5,21,21.5&
#44;22,23

etc.

>> No.2050586

>>2050546

Count by .5s fixes this problem.

0,.5,1,1.5,2,10,10.5,11,11.5,12,20,20.5,21,21.5&
#44;22,23

etc.

>> No.2050621

>>2050529 No, sorry, you cannot have a fucking base less than 1.

See:
>>2050436
>>2050452
We just did.

>> No.2050727

>>2050546

no. Each place is a power of the base. So, let's let there be some symbol for 1/2 in our base 1/2 system. say, @, and a placeholder, 0.

@ = <span class="math">1/2^1[/spoiler] = 1/2
@0 = <span class="math">1/2^2[/spoiler] = 1/4
@00 = <span class="math">1/2^3[/spoiler] = 1/8

As you can see, in the base .5 system, as the numbers get "larger," the number they represent is actually smaller. But when you get into decimals, it's the opposite.

0.@ = <span class="math">1/2^-1[/spoiler] = 1
0.0@ = <span class="math">1/2^-2[/spoiler] = 4
0.00@ = <span class="math">1/2^-3[/spoiler] = 8

And so forth.

>> No.2050794

>>2050727
This

>> No.2050867

>>2050540
wat?
>>2050544
you can't represent negative numbers. A negative number translates into a positive number greater than 1, a positive number translates into a positive number less than 1.

>> No.2050878

>>2050867
A number is negative if you stick a negative sign in front of it regardless of the base. Do you have any idea how numbers work?

>> No.2050879

BASE - 2 i.

>> No.2050886

>>2050546
Yes, it's retarded, but you can have, say pi, as the base and just have the numbers go up to 3. The problem is that then not all representations are unique... that and it's not particularly useful.

Base sqrt(2) is interesting, though. It's similar to binary for whole numbers, but you can use it to represent the hypotenuse of a square with the same base that represents the sides.

>> No.2050888

>>2050867

Stick a negative sign in front and be happy. The multiplicative expansion ahs nothing to do with its additive sign dickweed.The jist of of it is that some psychologist (at Cornell no less) claims to have measured evidence for human precognition (future sight), and is publishing a paper later this year in an APA journal (already recommended by reviewers even). My suspicion is that there is some egregious misrepresentation of the statistics involved, the psychologists that weighed in on it (including a Berkeley professor) couldn't find a mistake with the methodology from the psych point of view, but maybe some healthy physical... scepticism... is better warranted.

>> No.2050896

>>2050878
Are you fucking retarded? You do not know how numbers work. Either you have no way to represent numbers >1 or you have no way to represent numbers <0. Take your pick.

>> No.2050891

>>2050878
Except in p-adics

>> No.2050900

>>2050888

Lol, for some reason I pasted half my response for the thread abut precognition

>> No.2050901

>>2050586
what in gods name are you doing?

>> No.2050904

The universe imagined my HUMANS is controlled by these two numbers.

>> No.2050926

>>2050621
No, it's not fucking possible, for the reasons I pointed out, which you fail to address. You can't put negatives inside digits. There doesn't even exist any notation for that. You faggots are just making shit up now. You can't have a numeral system which doesn't define the symbols used in it, which is what you do if you say "base 1/2". There's no such fucking thing under any kind of existing convention, and no new convention has been defined here, just bullshitters bullshitting.

>> No.2050946

>>2050926 You can't put negatives inside digits

This is not necessary to express negative numbers in a fractional base for the same reason it is not necessary to express numbers in a natural base.

-0.5(base10) = -1 (base0.5)

>> No.2050954

>>2050926
Wrong. People define fractional bases and irrational bases all the time. Look up golden ratio base. Sure, the digits have integer values, but so do base 1/2 digits. The @ described is actually a 1.

And as for your negative complaint, negative numbers are just numbers with a notation saying "This number is negative." You do the same in every base, no matter the base.

>> No.2050960

>>2050946
also, this is wrong. -0.5 (base 10) = -10 (base 1/2)

>> No.2050977 [DELETED] 

What would the graph of <span class="math"> {(x,y) | x^{iy} = 0} [/spoiler] look like?

>> No.2050993 [DELETED] 

What would the graph of <span class="math"> x^{iy} = 0 [/spoiler] look like?

>> No.2050989

>>2050977

>implying you can graph conditional equations

>> No.2051003

>>2050989
It was supposed to be a set, fucked up the LaTeX.

>> No.2051022 [DELETED] 

>>2051003
>>2050989
What would the graph of <span class="math"> \{(x,y): x^{iy} \} [/spoiler] look like?

>> No.2051034

What would the graph of <span class="math"> \{(x,y): x^{iy} =0 \} [/spoiler] look like?

fuck, it's late I shouldn't attempt latex in this state

>> No.2051043

>>2051034

Are you asking for the graph of y=e^xi? On the cartesian plane? Because it looks like nothing. There would be a single point at (pi, -1).

>> No.2051054

>>2051043 Are you asking for the graph of y=e^xi?
No.

>> No.2051072

>>2051034
It'd look like a vertical line through the origin.

Did you mean <span class="math">x ^ {i y} = 1[/spoiler]?

>> No.2051124
File: 21 KB, 491x482, face40.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2051124

>>2050285
What about in base... zero.

>> No.2051185

>>2051124
1 * 0^0 = ?

>> No.2051200
File: 281 KB, 587x2494, troll score and fail.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2051200

>>2051124


faggot