a

^{ix}= cos(x*ln(a)) + i*sin(x*ln(a))

The odd thing is... I've never seen that above equation, until I derived it last night. Surely it's been floating around for years, and is not widely known because e is an attention whore?

**Moderators:** gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

e's reign over exponents is rather unfair, I think it's time to let all those other numbers have a chance in the spotlight!

a^{ix} = cos(x*ln(a)) + i*sin(x*ln(a))

The odd thing is... I've never seen that above equation, until I derived it last night. Surely it's been floating around for years, and is not widely known because e is an attention whore?

a

The odd thing is... I've never seen that above equation, until I derived it last night. Surely it's been floating around for years, and is not widely known because e is an attention whore?

What they (mathematicians) define as interesting depends on their particular field of study; mathematical anaylsts find pain and extreme confusion interesting, whereas geometers are interested in beauty.

z4lis wrote:e's reign over exponents is rather unfair, I think it's time to let all those other numbers have a chance in the spotlight!

a^{ix}= cos(x*ln(a)) + i*sin(x*ln(a))

The odd thing is... I've never seen that above equation, until I derived it last night. Surely it's been floating around for years, and is not widely known because e is an attention whore?

Its a trivial consequence of Euler's formula

a

Which is probably why no one bothers with it

mosc wrote:How did you LEARN, exactly, to suck?

- NathanielJ
**Posts:**882**Joined:**Sun Jan 13, 2008 9:04 pm UTC

SimonM wrote:Its a trivial consequence of Euler's formula

a^{ix}= e^{ln(a)ix}

Which is probably why no one bothers with it

Similarly, the derivative of a

I realize it's trivial, which is exactly why I'm curious as to why we don't use the more general form. It seems sort of bizarre to me.

What they (mathematicians) define as interesting depends on their particular field of study; mathematical anaylsts find pain and extreme confusion interesting, whereas geometers are interested in beauty.

z4lis wrote:I realize it's trivial, which is exactly why I'm curious as to why we don't use the more general form. It seems sort of bizarre to me.

The simple form has more uses in the area of complex numbers, ie rotation angle A is multiplication by e^{iA}

mosc wrote:How did you LEARN, exactly, to suck?

z4lis wrote:I realize it's trivial, which is exactly why I'm curious as to why we don't use the more general form. It seems sort of bizarre to me.

because your "more general form" uses ln() - which is the logarithm to the base e, therefore being not a bit "more general".

SimonM wrote:z4lis wrote:I realize it's trivial, which is exactly why I'm curious as to why we don't use the more general form. It seems sort of bizarre to me.

The simple form has more uses in the area of complex numbers, ie rotation angle A is multiplication by e^{iA}

Doesn't the other form have the same property. It's essentially the same thing, but when the base is not e, we have faster or slower "rotation".

What they (mathematicians) define as interesting depends on their particular field of study; mathematical anaylsts find pain and extreme confusion interesting, whereas geometers are interested in beauty.

No, it doesn't rotate by x, but by ln a x

mosc wrote:How did you LEARN, exactly, to suck?

Your argument strikes me as similar to saying "why multiply by n when we can add the number to itself n times?" It's needlessly complicating matters without making anything clearer, simpler or easier.

This is a placeholder until I think of something more creative to put here.

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests