Huh, I Wonder If All Math Geeks Pay Their Bills This Way?

Posted on March 21, 2009 by

fail owned pwned pictures
see more pwn and owned pictures

Filed under: Silliness

« »

17 Responses

  1. Tim Lambert, on March 21, 2009 at 8:31 pm said:

    the caption is wrong. e^(iπ) is -1 so the check is for $0.002.

  2. afarensis, FCD, on March 21, 2009 at 8:45 pm said:

    Good catch, and now that I look closer I have to wonder where the caption got 2 as part of the exponent from?

  3. afarensis, FCD, on March 21, 2009 at 9:12 pm said:

    Not that I doubted you, but I just ran it through my graphing calculator and you are correct. If one follows what is actually written on the check it is for $0.002. So, to answer to my question is no, they don’t pay their checks that way…

  4. dreikin, on March 21, 2009 at 9:15 pm said:

    Er – looks like e^(2π) to me. Check the whitish box after the Verizon [..] line – the 2 in 0.002 looks the same/similar.

  5. afarensis, FCD, on March 21, 2009 at 9:54 pm said:

    No, there is a larger version here where it can be clearly seen that it is the complex number “i”

  6. The Science Pundit, on March 21, 2009 at 9:55 pm said:

    Sorry dreikin, but I have to agree with Tim Lambert.
    1. I’m a math geek myself, so when I first saw that, I instinctually saw it as e^iπ.
    2. Any math geek would have seen the same thing because we are all familiar with (what many consider) the most beautiful equation in all of mathematics: Euler’s identity
    3. I downloaded the picture of the check and zoomed in. The results were unclear, but still looked more like e^iπ than e^2π.
    4. If the writer of the check was indeed a math geek (I think we can agree on that), then why would he use a “meaningless” term like e^2π which so closely resembled the most beautiful equation in all of math?
    I’m sorry dreikin, but I’m afraid that you made the same mistake that Failblog made (a mistake which only a “non math geek” could possibly make). That check says e^iπ!

  7. The Science Pundit, on March 21, 2009 at 10:01 pm said:

    Thank you for the proof Afarensis, FCD! I knew I was right, but that better picture sure helped. ;-) :-P

  8. afarensis, FCD, on March 21, 2009 at 10:28 pm said:

    No problem. I’m not a math geek enough to recognize Euler’s formula but I do know the symbol for a complex number when I see it. Now that I have followed your link it is incredibly obvious that it is Euler’s formula + two cents. After reading about it I have to say that that is a pretty sweet equation (Euler’s that is).

  9. Who Cares, on March 22, 2009 at 12:22 am said:

    Not a math geek but this reminds me of packing a distance table into a set of imaginary numbers (that is my first time I got into contact with complex numbers, trying to translate that from a matlab interpolation function into C++).
    This doesn’t happen to be a special case of that trick?

  10. dreikin, on March 22, 2009 at 4:10 am said:

    Ah! Ok, didn’t realize there was a bigger version available. And yeah, I’m familiar with Euler’s identity – in fact, it’s sown in pretty colors on the sleeve of the shirt I’m wearing.
    And no, I was assuming that he was trying to reach a specific amount – ie, that he had a received a bill of $536.49 and had concocted the formula backward from it, so not a math geek fail either :P (I’ve seen two’s written like that before – somewhere between a Z and a zeta)

  11. DaveH, on March 22, 2009 at 5:17 am said:

    It looks like that the company had been hassling him for a bill of a FIFTH of a cent. Probably because of one of these new-fangled darn computer-things. They’re going to cause nothing but trouble, you mark my words!!!

  12. Tim G, on March 22, 2009 at 7:09 am said:

    FAIL for the caption writer.

  13. B0b Carroll, on March 22, 2009 at 9:15 am said:

    Pie?

  14. jay, on March 22, 2009 at 4:02 pm said:

    This is the same Verizon who can’t seem to understand the difference between $.02 and .02 cents.

  15. JackC, on March 24, 2009 at 5:05 pm said:

    So – has anyone yet realised that the person named on the check is the writer of that wonderous webcomic, xkcd?
    Even if you already knew that, check out the rollover comment for this comic
    Jack

  16. afarensis, FCD, on March 24, 2009 at 5:23 pm said:

    Yes…

  17. G, on March 26, 2009 at 6:58 pm said:

    Silliness = “WHAT NOW, BITCHES?”

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 33 other followers