It appears you have not yet registered with our community. To register please click here...

Theory of Everything  

  
Go Back   Theory of Everything > Tools > Mathematics > Theorems and Conjectures
Reload this Page Euler Identity
Register Website Toe Club Your Blog Arcade

Welcome to the Theory of Everything forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Euler Identity
Old
  (#1 (permalink))
The Thinker
Guille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the rough
 
Guille's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,278
Thanks Given: 14
Thanked 9x in 9 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2005
Rep Power: 47
   
Euler Identity - 10-27-2005, 03:05 PM

Magnificent and absolutelly incredible, it is the one magical equation in mathematics that no one, not even anti-mathematicians, dare to disagree with or dislike.

The identity is a special case of the euler formula:



because when x=π then cosπ=-1 and sinπ=0. So we come to it:



And to show the relationships between all the mathematical constants, we obtain the most beautifull object done in mathematics tat I'v ever seen, it is to mathematics what the mona lisa or giocconda is for painting, and bethoven's symphony nº 9 to music, it is:



What do you think about it? What could it's significance be? How important should it be for the TOE?....Any other comment?
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#2 (permalink))
Raider of the lost time
AntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the rough
 
AntonioLao's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 5,109
Thanks Given: 641
Thanked 97x in 96 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rep Power: 71
   
10-27-2005, 03:42 PM



This expression proves the existence of directed straight lines, one positive and one negative. When they collide, the result is zero.


Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: a(tr(t)=c²
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#3 (permalink))
The Thinker
Guille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the rough
 
Guille's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,278
Thanks Given: 14
Thanked 9x in 9 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2005
Rep Power: 47
   
10-28-2005, 02:58 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao


This expression proves the existence of directed straight lines, one positive and one negative. When they collide, the result is zero.
Do you mean directed straight lines in spatial reality, i.e. geometry, or in just mathematical representations (maybe graphs?)?
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#4 (permalink))
Raider of the lost time
AntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the rough
 
AntonioLao's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 5,109
Thanks Given: 641
Thanked 97x in 96 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rep Power: 71
   
10-29-2005, 03:27 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUILLE
Do you mean directed straight lines in spatial reality, i.e. geometry, or in just mathematical representations (maybe graphs?)?
Both. I know, I find it very difficult to graph zero, but if I graphed 1 and -1, zero is exactly located at the midpoint between 1 and -1.


Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: a(tr(t)=c²
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#5 (permalink))
The Thinker
Guille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the rough
 
Guille's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,278
Thanks Given: 14
Thanked 9x in 9 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2005
Rep Power: 47
   
10-29-2005, 03:54 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao
Both. I know, I find it very difficult to graph zero, but if I graphed 1 and -1, zero is exactly located at the midpoint between 1 and -1.
Interesting, spetially for this: Imagine the graph is the graph of complex numbers, with the horizontal (x) dimension being the real numbers and the imaginary numbers being the vertical (y) dimension. This mean that the midpoint between any two complex numbers is 0. But it doesn't make sense because 0 is the cross point between the two dimension. Or maybe this zeros to whic h you refer to, we can call them "local zeros" in contrast to the other "universal zero"?
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#6 (permalink))
Raider of the lost time
AntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the rough
 
AntonioLao's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 5,109
Thanks Given: 641
Thanked 97x in 96 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rep Power: 71
   
10-30-2005, 02:44 PM

the numbers found on the horizontal axis are pure real numbers. The ones found on the vertical axis are pure imaginary numbers. Complex numbers are found anywhere on the 4 quadrants except the two axes mentioned above.


Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: a(tr(t)=c²
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#7 (permalink))
The Thinker
Guille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the rough
 
Guille's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,278
Thanks Given: 14
Thanked 9x in 9 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2005
Rep Power: 47
   
10-30-2005, 02:55 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao
the numbers found on the horizontal axis are pure real numbers. The ones found on the vertical axis are pure imaginary numbers. Complex numbers are found anywhere on the 4 quadrants except the two axes mentioned above.
Up to what I know, all reals and imaginary are included int he set of complex numbers, they are indeed complex numers. What happens is that they are of the form a+0 or 2i+0..... But they ARE counted as complex numbers.
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
purity
Old
  (#8 (permalink))
Raider of the lost time
AntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the rough
 
AntonioLao's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 5,109
Thanks Given: 641
Thanked 97x in 96 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rep Power: 71
   
purity - 10-31-2005, 02:46 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUILLE
they are of the form a+0 or 2i+0
when the real argument is zero, the complex number becomes pure imaginary. When the imaginary argument is zero, the complex number becomes pure real.
These are respectively found the imaginary axis and real axis.


Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: a(tr(t)=c²
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#9 (permalink))
The Thinker
Guille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the rough
 
Guille's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,278
Thanks Given: 14
Thanked 9x in 9 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2005
Rep Power: 47
   
11-01-2005, 07:21 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao
when the real argument is zero, the complex number becomes pure imaginary. When the imaginary argument is zero, the complex number becomes pure real.
These are respectively found the imaginary axis and real axis.
True, I know. But they do count in the set of all complex numbers.

About Euler's identity, e^ipi is a real number, -1. This means that some combinations of reals and imaginaries can give still realsor imaginaries, not complex numnbers, even when no part of the number is zero.
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
imaginary exponent of real is real
Old
  (#10 (permalink))
Raider of the lost time
AntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the rough
 
AntonioLao's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 5,109
Thanks Given: 641
Thanked 97x in 96 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rep Power: 71
   
imaginary exponent of real is real - 11-01-2005, 12:23 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUILLE
Euler's identity, e^ipi is a real number, -1.
the math behind Euler's identity is the imaginary exponent of real is real. I have the book that explains a little bit about this. I try to look into it.


Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: a(tr(t)=c²
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
There is no gravity, just electrostatics Aswin Chandrasekaran General Physics 14 03-14-2005 02:50 PM



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.1.0
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com