What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
186 Comments
- Nichevo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+426The two tricky parts are:
e^ (i * pi) = -1
The Riemann sum of 1/(2^x) from 1 to infinity = 1
So it simplifies to:
0.002 + (-1) + 1 = 0.002 - MrBabyMan, on 10/12/2007, -12/+289"What now, bitches?" LOL!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+122http://www.xkcd.com
There's the guy that made it. - admirabumblebee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+121I just checked with my mother who is vp of operations and head of the fraud department at a major bank... the Check is valid.
In fact apparently, there's a lot of weird stuff you could do to a check and it still be valid. - camintmier, on 10/12/2007, -3/+118If I'm correct, and I hardly ever am, that's a valid check. As long as it has the account owner's name, the date, the words "Pay to the order of" followed by the payee's name, the dollar amount in numerical and in written form, the name of the bank where the account is held (along with the bank's city and state) and the signature of the account owner, it should be valid. It could be written on a bar napkin, the back of a t-shirt, whatever. Obviously the mathmatical equasion counts as numerical and written form, so it should be valid in the eyes of the law. Check out http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/chk/20010320a.asp?prodtype=bank for more info.
Note: I'm not a lawyer, and don't play one on TV either. - traviscaruth, on 10/12/2007, -20/+120and u took the time to do that...
wow, you ARE my hero!! - jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -9/+103@Nichevo
"0.002 + (-1) + 1 = 0.002"
Yes, but .002 dollars = 1/5 of one cent!!!!! - clubmasta2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+84In other words
This math further proves .002 cents and .002 dollars might be different
I think the jury is still out though - derjazzmeister, on 10/12/2007, -3/+57yeah, except the rest of us have no clue!
- digggggggggg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+53For all you guys who are wondering why e^(i*pi) is -1, the actual reasoning is actually extremely counterintuitive, but it can actually be derived in a few steps.
First, recall that the taylor series expansion around n=0 for e to any power x is the infinite series (x^0/0!) + (x^1/1!) + (x^2/2!) + ... , which is a convergent series. (check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series)
Then, substitute (i*pi) for x to get ((i*pi)^0/0!) + ((i*pi)^1/1!) + ((i*pi)^2/2!) ...
Since i is really sqrt(-1), taking powers of i results in i, -1, -i, 1 for powers 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively.
The Taylor expansion we had for e^(i*pi) earlier can then be reduced to the infinite series i - ((pi^1)/1!) - ((i*pi^2)/2!) + ((pi^3)/3!) + ((i*pi^4)/4!) ...
Now lets separate the terms to produce (i - ((i*pi^3)/3!) + ((i*pi^5)/5) - ((i*pi^7)/7) + ...) and ( pi - (pi^2)/2! +(pi^4)/4! + ... )
Which, as can be seen on the page I just linked, are the series expansions of i*sin(pi) + cos(pi) respectively (factor out the i on the sine to produce a coefficient, and the pi is substituted for x in both cases)
The sine of pi is 0, and cosine -1, so it's i*0 -1, which is just -1.
That's all off the top of my head, so there may have been some leniency with signs and some hand waving involved... but hopefully that should explain it. - pagit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+43How I spent New Year's Day 2007:
Fighting on digg over a math equation on New Year's Day - esteban, on 10/12/2007, -0/+37Back story to this here: http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/
- beg513, on 10/12/2007, -0/+32Dude, come on, it's ***** funny. Just leave it at that.
- marnaq, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32Dude, e^(ix) = cos x + isin x.
- NORTHCOAST, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24and the media said we are failing at math education - someone obviously learned some math
- Shananra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21"how 'bout binary? haha."
Oh god no, they would try to cash the check for $110,010,001 or similar. - Mofassa, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24My favourite part about everyone discussing the exp(ipi) is that it basically shows who's been at post-secondary and taken a first term calculus course and who hasn't. Not that there's anything wrong with it, but people here sure seem to like to point out what they think on math that makes no sense to them.
- MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23It's a summation, not a limit, debt. It's a standard geometric series.
- RG13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19@P337
Sum of an infinite Geometric Series = (a1)/(1-r) where a1 is the first term and r is the rate
a1=1/2
r =a2/a1 or (1/4)/(1/2) or 1/2
so = (1/2)/(1-1/2) = (1/2)/(1/2) = 1
I learned that...freshman year - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17The amount will get rounded up to 1 cent. So the guy actually gets ripped off. Haha. :)
- Wireddd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17can you write checks in hexadecimal?
- t05ter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15@ZeroLogic well considering that Verizon IS an American company, the check IS written out in dollars, and not to mention that it has "NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA" written on it, I think it's safe to say that the guy who wrote the check was American.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Unfortunately, those who live in apartments. They are still in the dark ages when it comes to paying rent.
- sworoc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14it starts at n = 1, so the sum of 1/2^n goes to 1, and the check goes to a value of .002, not 1.002
math major ftw - bigred, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14It's not in numerical and written form, since he put the same thing on the written line and in the numerical box. He would have had to write out in words the value of the cheque on the line.
- snowelite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Verizon then proceeded to follow guidlines, and shutoff his phone.
- digitalsin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Since when is enjoying B&W art, including nudes, a freakish fetish? You're saying he's not much smarter because of that?
What a moron. - Jofaba, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Thanks for that link, there's actually audio of the call in his first post: http://media.putfile.com/Verizon-Bad-Math
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12... who knows if this check was even submitted? the guy could have just written it and scanned it...
- rcholbert, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I really doubt Verizon would accept the check. While it's true you can write a "check" on just about anything and have it be legally valid, that doesn't mean the business has to accept it. It's legally valid only for your bank to withdraw the funds from your account when they receive it, and even they might not accept it from the business. Business have their own policies on what kind of checks they accept. Hell, businesses turn away perfectly good real checks every day because they don't have a check number, if you don't list a bazillion other personal details, or if they simply do not want to take your check.
Also, the writing on the check seems a little super-imposed... like it was added on after it was scanned. Maybe it's just a lack of sleep on my end though. Happy New Year :) - takeda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Just make sure you use series that converges =))))
- mathchemist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@p337
That sigma infront of (1/2)^n means the sum of all terms. Thus, it is the equivalent of saying 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ..., which is equal to one. - dralezero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+81cent or 1 dollar?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I would love to see the look on the tellers face if you went to cash that check.
- namutatya, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Anyone abusing a major service provider should be treated as a hero :)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8how 'bout binary? haha.
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@camintmier - That's not totally true. Nearly all banks have a "terms of service" that you are agreeing to when you open an account. One of the terms all banks have is you must use one of their checks. So even though writing a check on a pizza box may be perfectly legal, your bank doesn't have to accept the check if it violates their TOS.
It's kind of a gotcha. Sure it's legal, but you still can't do it because you agree not to when opening the account. - vagarach, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7In the other parts of the world it is spelt cheque, and pronounced 'check'. Just one of the many things that the 'first' Americans saw fit to change from the British norm. Hence the countdown to debate.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7not a very smart move. watch the dumb bank give verizon some massive amount of cash reuslting in serious NSF.
- Thor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6He should use the formula provided by Verizon:
35,893KB x .002 Cents/KB
Then when the bank only credits Verizon 71.786 cents (or $0.72) the fun will begin. At least you can be assured that the banks know the difference between dollars and cents.
Actually I'm surprised there isn't a class action suit in the works. - arizonagroove, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Why did you link directly to the image and provide absolute no context for it?
This: http://xkcd.com/verizon/ would have been an infinitely better link to submit because it provides context. - shoeshine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7That's ***** awesome.
- brianegge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I once wrote a check to the IRS in bubble letters. They cleared the check for an amount much larger than what I had written it for. A few days later my bank corrected their 'mistake'. Lesson learned: I can be a smart ass, but so can the clerk on the other end.
- vistic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@debt:
It's a series though, not a limit. :-P - orbit1979, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Regardless of what that equation actually equals, if anything valid at all, it still waste corporate time, and spites them. Something which most big companies deserve considering how much they ***** people over and waste their time.
I digg it. - Rorrim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Complex Analysis that covers complex exponentiation definitely isn't just algebra ...
- numb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5
@iamcitizen
"There's the guy that made it."
When I saw the check the first thing I thought of was this comic:
http://xkcd.com/c179.html - clubmasta2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Is there a law about only writing whole numbers on checks?
I mean...I'm sure there is...but I don't know - KyleGoetz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4>>physics major ftw.
AHAHAHAHA. More like "physics major for the LOSE" because the summation is from 1 to infinity, not 0 to infinity. The summation is 1. Thus, the -1 and +1 offset each other, and we are left with .002.
I hate it when physics majors try to show off how their applied math degree somehow makes them qualified to be right 100% of the time. It means nothing when you cannot even read correctly. PS there are some of us on here who have abstract math degrees ;) - kelvie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Nichevo
I'm sure you meant infinite sum instead of Riemann sum, right? -
Show 51 - 100 of 186 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 