but that doesn't make it a better formula. Or if it did, then the following formula would be infinitely superior to all of the above (and it doesn't directly mention either π or τ):
e^(τi)-1=0. This is obviously better since it not only contains the fundamental constants e, tau, and the beautiful numbers 0 and 1, it also includes a minus sign, emphasizing the fact that we are working over a field with an additive inverse. ;)
Comments
bah e^(0.5τi)+1=0
> bah e^(0.5τi)+1=0
nah e^(τi)=1
Well darn, that looks even nicer.
It's not as good! You can get it from the original formula easily, but not vice versa.
You can get both formulas from this one:
but that doesn't make it a better formula. Or if it did, then the following formula would be infinitely superior to all of the above (and it doesn't directly mention either π or τ):Yes and yes. A formula is better if it reveals more of the math behind it, in a compact form.
e^(τi)-1=0. This is obviously better since it not only contains the fundamental constants e, tau, and the beautiful numbers 0 and 1, it also includes a minus sign, emphasizing the fact that we are working over a field with an additive inverse. ;)
e^(iT)=1
http://vihart.com/blog/pi-is-still-wrong/