Re: Help with confirmation on a small bit of assembly?

[pyro00099@yahoo.com]

On Jan 29, 1:41 pm, Raymond Wiker <r...@RawMBP.local> wrote:
> "Michael J. Mahon" <mjma...@aol.com> writes:
>
>
>
> > Alex Freed wrote:
> >> "Don Bruder" <dak...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> >>news:45bd5fd9$0$69026$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
> >>>> Yes it does. Take "i" and square it. You'll get a negative -1 by
> >>>> definition.
>
> >>>OK, wise-guy, any *REAL* number...
> >> Did you ever ask yourself why the numbers in many programming
> >> languages
> >> are devided into INTEGER and REAL?
> >> *REAL* as opposed to IMAGINARY.
> >> So again by definition "i" can not be represented by real numbers.
>
> >>>Eh... I don't  think that holds, seeing as they are, by definition, an
> >>>infinite distance apart... Rather difficult for two points an infinite
> >>>distance apart to be/occupy the same point, wouldn't you agree?
> >> I would agree if I didn't take a course in the theory of functions of
> >> complex variables. Imaginary numbers are hard to imagine.
> >> Pun intended.
>
> > I've always considered the most beautiful math equation to be:
>
> >    e^(2*i*pi) = -1
>
> > One could teach an entire course in complex analysis from that
> > equation!        Not *completely* sure, but I think that's wrong... AFAIR, it
> should be e^(pi*i) = -1...

I had a professor that liked it in the form:

e^(i*pi)+1=0

It has the 5 most important constants in math: :pi, e, i, 0 and 1.