Notices
Results 1 to 18 of 18
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By mathman
  • 1 Post By nano

Thread: Meaningful representation of "e"?

  1. #1 Meaningful representation of "e"? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    226
    Not sure if this is worthy of its own thread, but I couldn't find any recent related threads, so a here's a quick question...

    Is it valid to algebraically derive something like "e=???" from identities in Euler's formula?

    For example, we know from Euler's formula. So could I derive, say, ?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    How in the who knows what did you get that result?

    Edit: Oh I think I see now, but no that is not how you deal with exponents at all. You may want to brush up on your exponent algebra.

    Edit again: I'm sorry I suppose that is valid. Just strange to see it that way I guess.


    Last edited by TheObserver; July 2nd, 2012 at 04:26 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    56
    Yes it's valid to but why on earth would you want to?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    How in the "who knows what" did you get that result?

    Edit: Oh I think I see now, but no that is not how you deal with exponents at all. You may want to brush up on your exponent algebra.
    It took me a while to understand your first sentence. A bit too many interrogatives clumped up together Anyway, I'm not sure if this is right or not...

    is the original identity, well... the one obtained from the actual famous one.

    , by simply rooting both sides.

    , by properties of the imaginary unit.

    I don't see what's wrong here, if you could point it out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by nano View Post
    Yes it's valid to but why on earth would you want to?
    It's a mix of interest and boredom, I'll admit. It could be a meaningful representation of Euler's number and I never see it anywhere. Call it number mysticism if you'd like but I thought it was kind of a beautiful identity. Also, I think I'm edging on something big (or not) but I'll have to see now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    56
    Well it is no more beautiful or fundamental than Euler's identity since it's merely a reformulation. And the reason you never see it expressed as such is because it's a pretty useless form. There are countless expressions for e which are not only useful but shed a certain level of insight into the nature of the constant.

    That's not me playing down your curiosity however.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by nano View Post
    Well it is no more beautiful or fundamental than Euler's identity since it's merely a reformulation. And the reason you never see it expressed as such is because it's a pretty useless form. There are countless expressions for e which are not only useful but shed a certain level of insight into the nature of the constant.That's not me playing down your curiosity however.
    Fair enough. Checked it on Wolfram Alpha; at least it's valid.What doesn't check out, however, is e=1^(-i/(2pi)).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    56
    Indeed. A simpler form of what you've done there is as follows:



    The fallacy is that you've applied the following rule for a negative x



    The problem being that this relation only generally holds for non-negative x (and you can see why).
    Last edited by nano; June 30th, 2012 at 07:21 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by nano View Post
    Indeed. A simpler form of what you've done there is as follows:



    The fallacy is that you've applied the following rule for a negative x



    The problem being that this relation only generally holds for non-negative x (and you can see why).
    *sigh* Sorry if this is insanely stupid of me, really, but I'm confused as to where that applies in my equation? I don't see where what I did relates to that rule. Again, sorry. I'm not that great with math.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by halorealm View Post
    *sigh* Sorry if this is insanely stupid of me, really, but I'm confused as to where that applies in my equation? I don't see where what I did relates to that rule. Again, sorry. I'm not that great with math.
    You said that the following relation did not check out:

    Now consider how you got to that equation, step-by-step. You went from here:

    which is correct, and replaced (-1) with

    presumably through the logic that I listed above. That is where you went wrong.
    Last edited by nano; June 30th, 2012 at 01:45 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    226
    Ah, I see now. That's not what I did though.

    I went directly from Euler's formula for the identity .

    Again, just rooting both sides.

    The left side simplifies.

    And rearranging the power on the right side by properties of imaginary numbers.

    I suspect the problem concerns an exponent law that doesn't apply to complex numbers... maybe?

    Or maybe something really obvious I missed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    56
    Yes, it's effectively the same thing: your exponentiation is invalid. You should give this a read:
    Exponentiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    226
    That's quite a long Wiki article. I wonder what you're thinking... "Ah. That should keep him away fo a while" Thanks for the help; it's much appreciated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    56
    Not at all. I love discussing elementary algebra; it's really putting my PhD to good use

    Anyway, you don't need to read the entire article. Have a glance at the stuff on real powers and that involving complex numbers.
    It's very easy to go wrong with complex numbers when you apply what seem like intuitive results from real (or, typically, natural) numbers. Here's another nice one:



    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by nano View Post
    Here's another nice one:



    Yes. I thought about that some time ago. That's obviously not true. This question might be above me, but doesn't that still essentially mean the natural logarithm is a multi-valued function?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    1,229
    Quote Originally Posted by halorealm View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nano View Post
    Here's another nice one:



    Yes. I thought about that some time ago. That's obviously not true. This question might be above me, but doesn't that still essentially mean the natural logarithm is a multi-valued function?
    Yes. You can always add 2kπi, for any integer k, when taking a natural log.
    halorealm likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    226
    Okay. And since 0 is included in that set, can be solely described by for (or for you Tauists here).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    56
    That's correct. This is reflected in the Riemann surface for the logarithm:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...urface_log.jpg
    halorealm likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: April 15th, 2012, 12:11 AM
  2. "MOND", Prelude to "Critique of the Universe, Introduction"
    By Gary Anthony Kent in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: January 28th, 2012, 01:31 AM
  3. "Dating" posts split from "Purpose of life" thread
    By Christopher Ball in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: October 16th, 2011, 05:37 AM
  4. "Dating" posts split from "Purpose of life" thread
    By Christopher Ball in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: October 11th, 2011, 10:35 AM
  5. is "jesus" a pseudo-science "user"?
    By streamSystems in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 22nd, 2007, 12:07 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •