Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Madelaine Elimae, born 8/8/07
Two years old!
Charlotte Roseanna, born 8/2/09
Sisters!
Our family of four!
About Me
- Neb
- I am a retired mathematics graduate student, a craver of beauty, a suitor of wisdom, a lunatic with reason; a poet without verse, writer-want-to-be, musician-wish-I-were, symmetry-loving seeker of the abstract, the elegant, the transcendent, the divine. I love my babies and my husband, good coffee, late night talks with long (and never)-lost friends, watching the sun set from my disheveled balcony, tulips, Rich Mullins, Bob Dylan, U2, Brancusi, Picasso, Chaim Potok, C.S. Lewis, T.S. Eliot, designing and not finishing quilts, vacuuming, and Peace.
Follow me on Twitter!
Click here and join, and I'll get points!!
Babies!
Madelaine Elimae, born 8/8/07
Two years old!
Charlotte Roseanna, born 8/2/09
Sisters!
Our family of four!
Quilts!
7 comments:
I'm thinking this one has to be related to that... the sequel, perhaps?
http://failblog.wordpress.com/files/2009/01/fail-owned-verizon-fail.jpg
Heh heh. One note- the caption below the check is wrong- the check has "e^(i*pi)", not "e^(2*pi)," and e^(i*pi) is -1. So the amount of the check is really .002+(-1)+(1), which is just .002.
Are you sure? Not about the math... I wouldn't know... but about the handwriting. It does indeed look like e^(2*pi) to me. The 2 is not the most elegantly formed but I would say it was a 2 rather than an i.
At least they weren't trying to compare fractions.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's an i. Before I read the caption it immediately looked like an i to me- and in other places on the internet, others identify it as an i. (Compare it to his other 2's- his 2's have much more of a hook.) Besides, from a math perspective, it's much more elegant to make the check out for .002 (using e^(i*pi) is -1 and the sum is 1, canceling out) than the random amount you get using e^(2*pi).
My interpretation was that the caption was done by whomever actually wrote the check. It's not text typed in below; it's actually part of the .jpeg image. Presumably the person who took the picture was the person who wrote the check, and presumably he knows what he wrote. The "random amount" could be explained if he actually got a bill for that and sent this in response.
Who knows... I'm just waiting for the media to pick this up and do an interview with Mr. Randall Patrick Monroe and get the whole story!!
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=4059
You can see, in this bigger image of the check, that it's an i.
Post a Comment