Eotvos, not Newton

On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 1:52:25 PM UTC-6, Lord Vath wrote:

You know that the logarithm of e equals e. (The natural log, not base
ten.)

No, I don't know that. ln(e) equals 1. Just as the base-10 log of 10 equals 1.

However, e *is* a special number, or we wouldn't have natural logs.

John Savard

On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 2:45:45 AM UTC-6, Lord Vath wrote:

It's like trying to explain Mozart's, "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik," to
someone who washes car windows on a street corner.

I remember that! It was the theme song for a local music show on Channel 3 here in Edmonton.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZWKUszkbXU

John Savard

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 06:19:31 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote this crap:

On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 2:45:45 AM UTC-6, Lord Vath wrote:

It's like trying to explain Mozart's, "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik," to
someone who washes car windows on a street corner.

I remember that! It was the theme song for a local music show
on Channel 3 here in Edmonton.

Really? I can play it on the piano. Obviously you never wash car
windows on the street corner.

BTW, it means, "A little night music." I speak fluent German. It's
my fourth language.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On 14/08/2015 09:45, Lord Vath wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 09:15:43 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote this crap:

On 13/08/2015 20:52, Lord Vath wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 10:13:46 -0700 (PDT), palsing
wrote this crap:

On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 4:23:00 AM UTC-7, Lord Vath wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 07:58:15 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote this crap:

I think he must be seriously delusional if he really thinks that he has
a proof that i = 1/2 based on a pure bull**** divergent integral.

Lets see his workings!

Exceptional claims *REQUIRE* exceptional evidence.

It is time for fantasy Vath math to put up or shut up!

I already did. You already know that log e=e. Now raise e to the
power of the square root of negative one. You get something special.

I already showed you this...

e^(i*t) = cos(t)+i*sin(t)

... and this is called Euler's Formula, and in this case t = 1.
This needs to be evaluated in radian mode, and the answer
will always be a complex number, unless t = 0, in which
case the answer is always 1.

What does this have to do with showing that i = 1?

Wrong. i doesn't equal 1. Anybody knows this.

I've been trying to dumb it down for you, but you don't have the
mathematical background to understand.

He understands complex numbers perfectly well from what he has posted so
far. It is you who are utterly clueless. Dumber than a rock in fact.

Comparison with two short planks would be insulting to the planks.

You know that the logarithm of e equals e. (The natural log, not base
ten.) This makes it a special number.

*YOU* might believe that but no-one else does because it is *FALSE*.

log(e) = 1 for natural logarithms. Or put another way e = e^1

You are absolutely crazy delusional moonhowling mad!

BTW the complex roots of log(z)=z are approximately 0.31813 +/- 1.3372

You can see this by taking the leading terms or solving numerically.

1 + z + z^2/2! + z^3/3! + ... = z

Hence z^2(1+z/3) ~= -2

Quick and dirty analytic solution of the approximate equation

z0 ~ i.sqrt(2)

Somewhat better approximate solution

z1 ~ i.sqrt(2/(1+z0/3))

Since you won't believe me and for the benefit of others who might be
curious here is a link to the Mathematica solution with diagram:

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?...log%28z%29%3Dz

When you learn differential
equations you find a simple equation that the integration of e raised
to x equals e raised to x. Is that so hard to explain?

That is notably the first true statement that you have made so far.

Just replace
x with the square root of negative one. Something special happens.

*FOOL* If you replace x with i you have a constant expression.

I don't believe any respectable university or high school would turn out
a "maths major" with such a poor understanding of basic calculus.

Your so called "proof" is dead in the water.

The examples I've given you are because I've been trying to dumb down
the equations. You just don't have the mathematical background to see
it.

The main thing that you have proved beyond all reasonable doubt is that
you are a pathological liar as well as clueless about mathematics.

And also the inadvisability of placing a monkey in front of a keyboard.

Bluff and bluster won't hack it here. This is a *SCIENCE* newsgroup.

It's like trying to explain Mozart's, "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik," to
someone who washes car windows on a street corner.

Finally you have revealed your true vocation in life - car washer.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 9:42:27 AM UTC-6, Lord Vath wrote:

BTW, it means, "A little night music."

Why, yes, I knew that too. Although I don't speak German. I may have first
learned it from liner notes somewhere.

John Savard

On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 12:52:25 PM UTC-7, Lord Vath wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 10:13:46 -0700 (PDT), palsing
wrote this crap:

On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 4:23:00 AM UTC-7, Lord Vath wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 07:58:15 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote this crap:

On 12/08/2015 22:09, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 8:29:38 AM UTC-6, Lord Vath wrote:

Are you kidding me? I was a math major. I have more math in my
little finger than you have in your whole hand. I know the difference
between a variable and a constant.

If that is the case, then you must be trolling.

John Savard

I think he must be seriously delusional if he really thinks that he has
a proof that i = 1/2 based on a pure bull**** divergent integral.

Lets see his workings!

Exceptional claims *REQUIRE* exceptional evidence.

It is time for fantasy Vath math to put up or shut up!

I already did. You already know that log e=e. Now raise e to the
power of the square root of negative one. You get something special.

I already showed you this...

e^(i*t) = cos(t)+i*sin(t)

... and this is called Euler's Formula, and in this case t = 1.
This needs to be evaluated in radian mode, and the answer
will always be a complex number, unless t = 0, in which
case the answer is always 1.

What does this have to do with showing that i = 1?

Wrong. i doesn't equal 1. Anybody knows this.

I've been trying to dumb it down for you, but you don't have the
mathematical background to understand.

You know that the logarithm of e equals e. (The natural log, not base
ten.) This makes it a special number. When you learn differential
equations you find a simple equation that the integration of e raised
to x equals e raised to x. Is that so hard to explain? Just replace
x with the square root of negative one. Something special happens.

OK., I mis-typed... what does this have to do with i = 1/2?

You have conveniently stopped trying to convince everyone that you are a math wiz, whereas I remain unconvinced.

Show me your step-by-step proof that i = 1/2, or forever STFU... just sayin'... but I predict that you are going to fail miserably... and I certainly DO have the mathematical background to follow along, no need to dumb it down, just show it step-by-step...

On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 1:45:45 AM UTC-7, Lord Vath wrote:

It's like trying to explain Mozart's, "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik," to
someone who washes car windows on a street corner.

What makes you think that a guy who washes car windows can't appreciate Mozart? Are you really that vapid?

On 8/14/15 1:45 AM, Lord Vath wrote:
It's like trying to explain Mozart's, "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik," to
someone who washes car windows on a street corner.

The guy washing the car windows is likely listening to the complete
works of Ludwig on his earbuds.

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:00:56 -0700 (PDT), palsing
wrote this crap:

What does this have to do with showing that i = 1?

Wrong. i doesn't equal 1. Anybody knows this.

I've been trying to dumb it down for you, but you don't have the
mathematical background to understand.

You know that the logarithm of e equals e. (The natural log, not base
ten.) This makes it a special number. When you learn differential
equations you find a simple equation that the integration of e raised
to x equals e raised to x. Is that so hard to explain? Just replace
x with the square root of negative one. Something special happens.

OK., I mis-typed... what does this have to do with i = 1/2?

You have conveniently stopped trying to convince everyone
that you are a math wiz, whereas I remain unconvinced.

Show me your step-by-step proof that i = 1/2, or forever
STFU... just sayin'... but I predict that you are going to fail
miserably... and I certainly DO have the mathematical
background to follow along, no need to dumb it down,
just show it step-by-step...

I made a mistake when I said log e equals e. Actually the integration
of log e equals e. The math is to complicated to explain on this
newsgroup. e is a special number. I've been extremely busy these
past few weeks and I had to take some time off.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe