ForumGarden

this is what you do when you don't agree with you cell phone bill and "they" won't comprimise

Attached files

Love it :wah::wah::wah:



Good to see you back:)

Don't tell me about being pissed - my new roof is leaking and I paid in full..

Love the check.

Patsy

I am stalking you Mr Wolvie:-6

Do you like it?;)

Suzy always beats me.....that doesn't sound right...but I'm not changing it....

That was funny and it is nice to see you back!

:wah::wah::wah:

WonderWendy3;734828 wrote: Suzy always beats me.....that doesn't sound right...but I'm not changing it....

That was funny and it is nice to see you back!

:wah::wah::wah:


Only because I know you enjoy it :sneaky::sneaky:

I love it when americans talk about being pissed.

That can cause you a real cultural problem if you use the expression in the uk.

pissed means drunk

pissed off means angry

i remember reading about an american who arrived late to a meeting in ;London and it was because of the taxi not turning up when he ordered it, he said to the receptionist "I'm really pissed", and she replied, "I'll make you a coffee and see if we can get you sober before you go in".

lemon_and_mint;734841 wrote: I love it when americans talk about being pissed.

That can cause you a real cultural problem if you use the expression in the uk.

pissed means drunk

pissed off means angry

i remember reading about an american who arrived late to a meeting in ;London and it was because of the taxi not turning up when he ordered it, he said to the receptionist "I'm really pissed", and she replied, "I'll make you a coffee and see if we can get you sober before you go in".


:wah::wah:

I never knew that pissed meant drunk until I came to the garden...and I couldn't understand why everyone got pissed on the weekends?? what did they do to get upset?? Weekends were supposed to be happy times!!!:p:wah:

God help me I actually tried to differentiate the sum on that cheque! Brilliant though, I must do it myself someday. :wah:

Galbally;734856 wrote: God help me I actually tried to differentiate the sum on that cheque! Brilliant though, I must do it myself someday. :wah:


=1?

That makes the whole cheque $0.002, the other two terms cancel.

spot;735062 wrote: =1?

That makes the whole cheque $0.002, the other two terms cancel.


Nah, they're plusses not multiplies

The summation goes to 0.5, the problem is the middle expression as it produces an imaginary result.

If it was just e to the power pi then it would be 23.13 but what that to the power of the square root of minus one is cannot, as far as I know, be directly expressed in real numbers.

Anyone else want to check my math?

spot;735334 wrote: Anyone else want to check my math?
No, but anytime you feel like translating it into English me and the other lower lifeforms might understand!!!:wah::wah:

The imaginary component is, strangely enough, zero, and the evaluation (though I don't pretend to know why but a graph might help) is -1

The series is 1/2 +1/4 +1/8 +1/16 +1/32... = 1

our FG men are handsome and so smart......:yh_drool



what were we talking about?? :-3

sunny104;735464 wrote: our FG men are handsome and so smart......:yh_drool



what were we talking about??


I dont know but my brain is starting to hurt:wah::wah:

spot;735459 wrote: The imaginary component is, strangely enough, zero, and the evaluation (though I don't pretend to know why but a graph might help) is -1

The series is 1/2 +1/4 +1/8 +1/16 +1/32... = 1


OK - so I evaluate n= two to infinity - I missed the initial cell in the spreadsheet.

why does e ^ i pi equate to zero - my maths is too far back and I forget how to evaluate imaginary numbers.

I bet my chili tastes better.



:-2

Bryn Mawr;736155 wrote: OK - so I evaluate n= two to infinity - I missed the initial cell in the spreadsheet.

why does e ^ i pi equate to zero - my maths is too far back and I forget how to evaluate imaginary numbers.


It doesn't - I said the two terms cancel, it evaluates to -1.

Euler's formula (the article cites the initial proof, I've no idea how it works at all!) states that:and pi is a simple substitution. You can see that the imaginary part is isolated with sin(pi) which is zero, so it disappears, and the remaining cos(pi) is -1. Run your finger round the circle and that's where it ends up after one turn.

spot;736160 wrote: It doesn't - I said the two terms cancel, it evaluates to -1.

Euler's formula (the article cites the initial proof, I've no idea how it works at all!) states that:and pi is a simple substitution. You can see that the imaginary part is isolated with sin(pi) which is zero, so it disappears, and the remaining cos(pi) is -1. Run your finger round the circle and that's where it ends up after one turn.


Many thanks - I'll try to remember that :wah:

I told you my maths was too long ago.

Good lord, even Euler can remember it and his maths was longer ago still.

spot;736163 wrote: Good lord, even Euler can remember it and his maths was longer ago still.


He has an advantage - he thought it up in the first place :-6