Friendly reminder that e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0

>>7845900
THANKS REDDIT

Was euler a redditor?

So (e^i*pi)/0=1.

>>7845900
>pi=0/i
>i=0/pi

Stop

>>7845909
>>7845928
>>7845935
>>7845973
What do you guys have against Euler's identity?

>>7845984
Nothing. It is rather lovely, isn't it?

File: image.png (126KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 640x1136px

>>7846020
Yeah

I was completely astonished when I first saw it. It really loses its charm when you take a complex analysis course tho.

>>7846092
Agreed about the complex analysis course, but even after all of these years I still smile when I see it. Euler was the man.

>>7846269
Euler would trivialize the entirety of /sci/ if he was alive.

>>7846281
No doubt. I can't imagine he would have wasted his time shitposting on /sci/, but I could be wrong.

>>7846281
I could trivialize it right now with a single equation.

/sci/ = Shit posters

>>7846281
Who is Euler? Some tripfaggot?

/sci/ is full of underageb&s who will never come close to my intelligence

tan(e^e) + 1/phi ≈ 0

>>7846092
You must have had a shitty complex professor, then. When I first saw it in Calc 1 I was only meh about it, didn't see anything interesting about it, although Taylor series were cool. When I took complex variables, though, it seemed a lot more exciting and profound, possibly because I had a great professor who really appreciated the beauty of mathematics.

>>7845900
Ln(-1) = ipi

Yeah, okay buddy

>>7848348
>working with imaginary numbers creates some weird shit

What a fucking surprise

>>7848365
this is why I don't take the imaginary numbers seriously

since we could've interchanged -1 and 1 or define -1*-1 = -1 the imaginary numbers should be completely symmetrical to the reals
the fact that we have weird shit like ln(-1) = ipi just pisses me off