This guy did not notice the coincidence e^(pi*i) + 1 = 0 which connects 5 fundamental constants.Of those 5 constants the first two are transcendental, the next is imaginary and the last two are natural. If this does not prove the existence of god please turn your head by 90 degrees and rethink the whole argument ;)

[quote author=Udo Klein link=topic=135881.msg1027987#msg1027987 date=1355164770] If this does not prove the existence of god ... [/quote]

I thought that was a philosophical question, all of which requires no proof. I though such question as do you trust Newton's laws of motion needs no proof. There is no way to prove the laws. We can experiment with them and show they work under our experimental conditions but still can't prove it will work elsewhere. But, if you do trust these laws, through seeing them work under various experimental conditions, you can prove many other laws with Newton's laws. I used to watch TV and I had (still have) the "History" and sci-fi channel. Between these channels I can't remember how many times some religious "scientists" were proving some events described in religious scripts actually happened, such as Red sea splitting with a desktop fan and bath tub, and bush can burn spontaneously. They got it all wrong. Philosophy needs no proof! Although it is easy to actually prove that god exists than disproving it. He just needs to show up and do some godly things in front of non-believers.

If Jesus himself showed up at a Tea Party convention and healed a bunch for free then started delivering -his- message they'd call him a fag and hang him for being a liberal.

Anything you can prove is not God. You spend your time better getting along with others, knowing them even if you can't prove who they are either.

But why does e^(pi*i)=-1? I think we understand that. At least some of us do. But not the 3_4_5 thing and all the rest. It's a mystery. It requires belief not proof. It's philosophical. It can't be explained. There's no reason for that pattern to be there. You have to admit at least that it's interesting.

sbright33: http://xkcd.com/217

But why does e^(pi*i)=-1? I think we understand that. At least some of us do. But not the 3_4_5 thing and all the rest. It's a mystery. It requires belief not proof. It's philosophical. It can't be explained. There's no reason for that pattern to be there. You have to admit at least that it's interesting.

First time seeing it for me! Very funny!

Why does e^pi-pi = 19.9990999...? Can someone explain the math behind that to me? Maybe there is no math. Philosophy?

Is it a Coincidence that it is so close to 20? It's only 1/10,000 away. But 6 9's? Hmmm Wait for it.

exp(pi)-pi=pi+pi^2/2+pi^3/3!+pi^4/4!..-pi

I don’t know where that leads except for numerical result.

You've missed a term. exp(pi)-pi=1+pi+pi^2/2+pi^3/3!+pi^4/4!....-pi

Pete

oops. Any math wiz?

sbright33: But not the 3_4_5 thing and all the rest.

That's because there is no 3_4_5 thing. The rest is fundamental relationships you can't understand without advanced math and coincidental digits.

You do the math you get to see it. There's no other way. You don't and you may become prey to charlatans and worse.

3_4_5.... what a con!

has any one read "Half Past Human" or "Godwhale" by T.J. Bass?

His gY=c premise that it's the creators signature is kinda interesting.

basically a planets gravity times the year in seconds comes out to the speed of light for a habitable planet.

And on the subject of pi, have you guys seen the movie?

If you haven't you should

I liked the first Castenada set better.

There is nothing unique about base 10. We chose it because of our fingers? This proves that there is some connection between the base we use and the number Pi.

If only a threetoed sloth could talk and inform us what he thinks pi is ?

It seldom stands alone. But it stands alone more often than pi/2 or pi+constant. So it makes more sense to define pi than 2pi.

A= Pi * r^2 That's the first one we learned with Pi in it.

Boffin1: If only a threetoed sloth could talk and inform us what he thinks pi is ?

3.05033005141512410523441405312532110230121444200411525255331420331

However, since it's a sloth, most people would give up and walk away before it got past the second "3"...

for a 3 toed sloth counting in base 3 base10 -> base3 1- 1 2- 2 3- 3 4-10 5- 11 6- 12 7- 13 8- 20 9- 21 10- 22

as for 2Pi, thats a radian/gradian thing

geometrically Pi is diameter/circumference

Uhhh, Cybertech.... how do you count to 10? With 1 hand?

The usually teach circumference first.

Pi as a half-circle, once you start using graphs and trig makes a whole lot of sense.

I've read there's been recent discovery of a pile of Archimedes' writings. The man was on to the limit or working on it before the Roman soldier showed him who's boss.

There's an ancient Arabic proof of the Pythagorean Theorem from centuries before Pythagoras that I always liked because it's geometric. But my hat's off to the Indian scholars who invented zero and went on to other depths (finite series, maybe infinite series) maybe 1000 years before Newton.

I remember finding out why the volume of a sphere is 4/3 Pi R^3, why the 4/3. It doesn't "prove" anything but the volume of a sphere but it was nice to know how. Which brings me to this whole "proves" thing. Some people have awfully loose ideas about what proof is, ie: "I want" + "something convenient with no real connection" = "proof". Please.. just.. think.

Right, perhaps the sloth uses base 6 then ?? and can you imagine how slow he would be using a calculator, as Ran said.

so the Roman’s had how many fingers?

base 10 as we know it was an Arabic invention.

besides the sloth would fall out of the tree if he/she used both hands

but to cater to the pedantic

1- 1

2- 2

3- 3

4- 4

5- 5

6- 10

7- 11

8- 12

9- 13

10- 14

this assumes the sloth has learnt the value of 0, either as a quantity or a place holder

I can't help wondering - 'now who are the nutters ?'

Fair points though.

Duane B