Difference between revisions of "Talk:179: e to the pi times i"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
(I just added a comment.)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
:He must have been pie-eyed when he wrote that; he's usually pretty good about his math... -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 05:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 
:He must have been pie-eyed when he wrote that; he's usually pretty good about his math... -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 05:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 
::I see what you did there. [[User:Daddy|Daddy]] ([[User talk:Daddy|talk]]) 15:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 
::I see what you did there. [[User:Daddy|Daddy]] ([[User talk:Daddy|talk]]) 15:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 +
 +
Randall says in the title text that he's never been satisfied with explanations of the sinusoidal nature of the function of e^ix. http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/questionCorner/epii.html really helps, at least for those who are obsessed with taylor series yet tragically horrible at math. --[[User:Jolbucley|Jolbucley]] ([[User talk:Jolbucley|talk]]) 03:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:39, 29 January 2014

This is one of the few comics that were changed after release, as stated by Randall in his XKCD book. It first claimed e^(i*Pi) = 1, which lead to huge protest from the community and a correction from Randall. --Gefrierbrand (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

He must have been pie-eyed when he wrote that; he's usually pretty good about his math... -- IronyChef (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I see what you did there. Daddy (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Randall says in the title text that he's never been satisfied with explanations of the sinusoidal nature of the function of e^ix. http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/questionCorner/epii.html really helps, at least for those who are obsessed with taylor series yet tragically horrible at math. --Jolbucley (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)