e to the i pi

[Lane Straatman]

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
#include <complex.h>
/*
double complex z1, z2, z3;
bool flag;
z1 = .4 + .7I;
z2 = cpow(z1, 2.0);
z3 = z1 * z1;
flag = false;
flag = true;
if (flag)
{
printf("%lf %lf\n", creal(z1), cimag(z1));
printf("%lf %lf\n", creal(z2), cimag(z2));
printf("%lf %lf\n", creal(z3), cimag(z3));
printf("%d\n", N);
}
*/

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
double complex z1, z2, z3, z4, z5;
z1=5 +7I;
z2=cpow(z1, 1I);
printf("%lf %lf\n", creal(z1), cimag(z1));
printf("%lf %lf\n", creal(z2), cimag(z2));
z5= 0 + I*(3.14159);

z3=2.54 + 0*I;
z4=cpow(z5,z3);
printf("%lf %lf\n", creal(z4), cimag(z4));

system("PAUSE") ;
return 0;
}
Why doesn't e^(i *pi) equal what most folks think it does? LS

[Richard Bos]

JimS <so***@not.comw rote:

Vista supports Visual Studio 2005 only, as far as I can tell, and VS
needs a service pack to do that properly AND it has to be run as
Administrator.

*Wow*. That's... amazing. Just amazing. The _wisdom_ that flows out of
Redmond, the attention to _security_, the great sense of _solid
build_... it's to be found nowhere else.

Richard

[Dik T. Winter]

In article <eq**********@r umours.uwaterlo o.cadj******@caffei ne.csclub.uwate rloo.ca (Dave Vandervies) writes:

In article <44************ *************** ***@comcast.com >,
Lane Straatman <in*****@invali d.netwrote:

....

z5= 0 + I*(3.14159);

z3=2.54 + 0*I;

If I understand your post correctly, this should be
z3=2.7182818284 59045 + 0*I;

z4=cpow(z5,z3);
printf("%lf %lf\n", creal(z4), cimag(z4));

Why doesn't e^(i *pi) equal what most folks think it does? LS

'Tmight come closer if e were what most people think it is.

It might also come closer if the arguments to cpow were in the
proper order.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, [phone]
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

[Fred Kleinschmidt]

"Richard Tobin" <ri*****@cogsci .ed.ac.ukwrote in message
news:eq******** **@pc-news.cogsci.ed. ac.uk...

In article <44************ *************** ***@comcast.com >,
Lane Straatman <in*****@invali d.netwrote:

>>z5= 0 + I*(3.14159);

z3=2.54 + 0*I;

If this is meant to be e, it's wrong. e is 2.718281828+

>>z4=cpow(z5,z3 );

If this is meant to be approximately e ^ (i*pi), it should be
cpow(z3,z5).

> system("PAUSE") ;

What is the point of this?

For fun, try 23.140693 ^ i.

-- Richard
--
"Considerat ion shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.

Aren't M_PI and M_E defined in math.h?

--
Fred L. Kleinschmidt

[Richard Heathfield]

Fred Kleinschmidt said:

<snip>

Aren't M_PI and M_E defined in math.h?

No.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <JC********@new s.boeing.com>,
Fred Kleinschmidt <fr************ ******@boeing.c omwrote:

>Aren't M_PI and M_E defined in math.h?

Yes, but unfortunately not on systems conforming only to the C
standard.

-- Richard

--
"Considerat ion shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.

[osmium]

"Fred Kleinschmidt" writes:

Aren't M_PI and M_E defined in math.h?

Thankfully, no. Only in grotesque extensions to the language made by
certain vendors.

Definitions of constants have no proper place in a programming language, it
just leads to two sets of constants, a private set, for M_AVOGADRO and the
like, and the set that came with the compiler, M_PI. and friends.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <52************ *@mid.individua l.net>,
osmium <r1********@com ast.netwrote:

>Definitions of constants have no proper place in a programming language, it
just leads to two sets of constants, a private set, for M_AVOGADRO and the
like, and the set that came with the compiler, M_PI. and friends.

Definitions of functions have no proper place in a programming
language, it just leads to two sets of functions, a private set, for
print_bank_bala nce and the like, and the set that came with the
compiler, strlen and friends.

-- Richard


--
"Considerat ion shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.

[jacob navia]

osmium wrote:

"Fred Kleinschmidt" writes:

>>Aren't M_PI and M_E defined in math.h?

Thankfully, no. Only in grotesque extensions to the language made by
certain vendors.

Definitions of constants have no proper place in a programming language, it
just leads to two sets of constants, a private set, for M_AVOGADRO and the
like, and the set that came with the compiler, M_PI. and friends.

lcc-win32 defines M_PI if not in conforming mode, as gcc does, for
instance.
They are not standard C but are POSIX. I do not see the point
in defining PI again and again...

[Fred Kleinschmidt]

"osmium" <r1********@com cast.netwrote in message
news:52******** *****@mid.indiv idual.net...

"Fred Kleinschmidt" writes:

>Aren't M_PI and M_E defined in math.h?

Thankfully, no. Only in grotesque extensions to the language made by
certain vendors.

Definitions of constants have no proper place in a programming language,
it just leads to two sets of constants, a private set, for M_AVOGADRO and
the like, and the set that came with the compiler, M_PI. and friends.

And thus we should get rid of defined constants like INT_MAX, INT_MIN, etc.,
since they have no place in a programming language.
--
Fred L. Kleinschmidt

[CBFalconer]

Fred Kleinschmidt wrote:

>

.... snip ...

>
Aren't M_PI and M_E defined in math.h?

No.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland .ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfoc us.com/columnists/423>

"A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
-- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
"There is nothing more amazing than stupidity in action."
-- Thomas Matthews