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

[Glenn Hutchings]

On 6 Feb, 09:37, "Lane Straatman" <inva...@invali d.netwrote:

"Glenn Hutchings" <zond...@google mail.comwrote in message

For even more fun, try computing i ^ i. Betcha didn't see that
coming!

We know that it exists as a complex that C can calculate from first
principles. LS

Well duh. But my point is, what do you think the answer will be?

Glenn

[Richard Heathfield]

santosh said:

Malcolm McLean wrote:

>"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote in message

<snip>

You have just discovered that Microsoft aren't all that interested
in supporting "legacy software" (e.g. their own two-year-old
compiler, if your account is anything to go by). Have you
considered porting your stuff to a more stable platform?

They do offer a free compiler. It looks pretty horrid, but at least
it compiled "Hello World" - not without five minutes tweaking to get
rid of a file called stdafx.h it insisted on adding.

Anyway I have registered and agreed not to distribute any programs
compiled with it as open source, etc, etc, etc. I've no real choice.
A computer isn't a computer without a programming environment - it's
just a glorified typewriter.

Why don't you purchase a copy of Visual Studio (TM)? Then you can
distribute your applications with source.

Let's get this straight. He spent money on a Microsoft product (Visual
C++). He then spent some more money on another Microsoft product
(Vista), as a result of which his first product stopped working. Are
you really suggesting that he gives *even more* money to Microsoft, to
get back the functionality that he has *already paid for*?

Have you ever heard of the expression "throwing good money after bad"?

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

[sjdevnull]

Malcolm McLean wrote:

"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote in message

Malcolm McLean said:

>
"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote in message
Microsoft have taken away my compiler. I bought a brand new Windows
Vista
machine, installed my copy of Visual Studio and - no executable.

You need Service Pack 7. Admittedly, Visual Studio won't work with that
either (possibly modulo emulators), but you get a perfectly capable C
compiler as part of the bundle. And of course it's completely free.

Seriously?

Er, no. Sorry, Malcolm, I thought you knew - "Service Pack 7" is the
traditional
name for Linux when being recommended as a fix for a Windows-specific
problem.

I need a Windows library to compile my games and BASICdraw,

You have just discovered that Microsoft aren't all that interested in
supporting
"legacy software" (e.g. their own two-year-old compiler, if your account
is
anything to go by). Have you considered porting your stuff to a more
stable
platform?

They do offer a free compiler. It looks pretty horrid, but at least it
compiled "Hello World" - not without five minutes tweaking to get rid of a
file called stdafx.h it insisted on adding.

Anyway I have registered and agreed not to distribute any programs compiled
with it as open source, etc, etc, etc. I've no real choice. A computer isn't
a computer without a programming environment - it's just a glorified
typewriter.

Is mingw working on Vista? I've had no problems with using it on
various older Windows versions, it's free, and you can distribute open
source and other software compiled with it.

[Keith Thompson]

"Malcolm McLean" <re*******@btin ternet.comwrite s:
[...]

Anyway I have registered and agreed not to distribute any programs compiled
with it as open source, etc, etc, etc. I've no real choice. A computer isn't
a computer without a programming environment - it's just a glorified
typewriter.

Do they *really* require you to agree to that? How can they enforce a
restriction like that? If you distribute your own source code, how
can the fact that you've fed it to their compiler affect your rights?
I suspect the situation isn't that simple.

You can always install Cygwin, which includes gcc (I'm not sure how
much support it has for Windows-specific programming, though).

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Lane Straatman]

"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote in message
news:nc******** *************** *******@bt.com. ..

santosh said:

>Malcolm McLean wrote:

>>"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote in message

<snip>

>You have just discovered that Microsoft aren't all that interested
in supporting "legacy software" (e.g. their own two-year-old
compiler, if your account is anything to go by). Have you
considered porting your stuff to a more stable platform?

They do offer a free compiler. It looks pretty horrid, but at least
it compiled "Hello World" - not without five minutes tweaking to get
rid of a file called stdafx.h it insisted on adding.

You asked it to do that.

>>Anyway I have registered and agreed not to distribute any programs
compiled with it as open source, etc, etc, etc. I've no real choice.
A computer isn't a computer without a programming environment - it's
just a glorified typewriter.

Why don't you purchase a copy of Visual Studio (TM)? Then you can
distribute your applications with source.

Let's get this straight. He spent money on a Microsoft product (Visual
C++). He then spent some more money on another Microsoft product
(Vista), as a result of which his first product stopped working. Are
you really suggesting that he gives *even more* money to Microsoft, to
get back the functionality that he has *already paid for*?

Have you ever heard of the expression "throwing good money after bad"?

The money I spent to buy MVC++4 I saved from my mouth. I'm just now
retiring it after -I dunno-a decade? of service. He has no business near a
keyboard if he doesn't know how to uninstall and reinstall. And if the
registry's forked then deltree C: and move on with a re-install that every
prudent user marks well for himself. Twenty bucks a year was good money for
me. I think spending any money on a computer for this guy is bad money. He
has no real choice about distributing software, as he lacks the ability to
manipulate the dominant OS. LS

[Dik T. Winter]

In article <11************ **********@l53g 2000cwa.googleg roups.com"Glenn Hutchings" <zo*****@google mail.comwrites:

On 6 Feb, 09:37, "Lane Straatman" <inva...@invali d.netwrote:

"Glenn Hutchings" <zond...@google mail.comwrote in message

For even more fun, try computing i ^ i. Betcha didn't see that
coming!

We know that it exists as a complex that C can calculate from first
principles. LS

Well duh. But my point is, what do you think the answer will be?

An interesting first question is: is it real, imaginary or neither.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, [phone]
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

[Lane Straatman]

"Glenn Hutchings" <zo*****@google mail.comwrote in message
news:11******** **************@ l53g2000cwa.goo glegroups.com.. .

On 6 Feb, 09:37, "Lane Straatman" <inva...@invali d.netwrote:

>"Glenn Hutchings" <zond...@google mail.comwrote in message

For even more fun, try computing i ^ i. Betcha didn't see that
coming!

We know that it exists as a complex that C can calculate from first
principles. LS

Well duh. But my point is, what do you think the answer will be?

#include <stdio.h>
#include <complex.h>
int main() {
long double complex z1;
z1= I;
z1 = cpow(z1, z1);
printf("%lf %lf ", z1);
return 0;}
--
LS

[Lane Straatman]

"Glenn Hutchings" <zo*****@google mail.comwrote in message
news:11******** *************@a 75g2000cwd.goog legroups.com...

On 4 Feb, 18:49, rich...@cogsci. ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:

>For fun, try 23.140693 ^ i.

For even more fun, try computing i ^ i. Betcha didn't see that
coming!

I stated in this thread that I wanted to take e to the i pi and get as close
as I could with it using pre-defined types. I think i^i better suits this
purpose. LS

[CBFalconer]

Lane Straatman wrote:

>

.... snip ...

>
I think spending any money on a computer for this guy is bad money.
He has no real choice about distributing software, as he lacks the
ability to manipulate the dominant OS.

Dominant? The cockroach population of NYC exceeds the human
population. Does that make them dominant?

--
<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

[Keith Thompson]

"Lane Straatman" <in*****@invali d.netwrites:

"Glenn Hutchings" <zo*****@google mail.comwrote in message
news:11******** **************@ l53g2000cwa.goo glegroups.com.. .

>On 6 Feb, 09:37, "Lane Straatman" <inva...@invali d.netwrote:

>>"Glenn Hutchings" <zond...@google mail.comwrote in message
For even more fun, try computing i ^ i. Betcha didn't see that
coming!

We know that it exists as a complex that C can calculate from first
principles. LS

Well duh. But my point is, what do you think the answer will be?

#include <stdio.h>
#include <complex.h>
int main() {
long double complex z1;
z1= I;
z1 = cpow(z1, z1);
printf("%lf %lf ", z1);
return 0;}

The "%lf" format specifier is invalid. The format for double is "%f";
the format for long double is "%Lf". Some implementations may support
"%lf" as an extension.

The "%Lf" format specifier requires an argument of type long double;
two such specifiers don't magically consume a single argument of type
long double complex. (I think I've mentioned this to you before.)

Even for a short program, *please* indent your code properly; it makes
it much easier to read.

Here's a corrected and simplified version of your program:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <complex.h>
int main(void)
{
const long double complex z1 = cpowl(I, I);
printf("%Lf %Lf\n", creall(z1), cimagl(z1));
return 0;
}

and its output:

0.207880 0.000000

You can get more digits by tweaking the format specifiers.

Apparently i^i (where i is the imaginary square root of -1 and "^"
denotes exponentiation) is a real number. I'm sure there's a simple
mathematical proof of this, but I'm too lazy to track it down or
reconstruct it.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.