Why is pi so revered while nobody gives a shit about e...

lol can't be unseen!

rate of reproduction

especially since 1828 is Leo Tolstoy's year of birth! So even easier to remember

underrated

But only until you enter hyper trig.

It's the rate at which a layperson gets fucked by people who aren't fucking idiots over time.

>I have never seen 50 digits of e plastered along the wall of a math office
Are you saying there are 50 digits of pi plastered along the wall of a math office somewhere?

the hell is a 'math office' even?

Why no one cares about G? I mean you feel gravity all the time yet you do not revere G? More people should care about my favourite constant.

So now it's about what you want?

My calc teacher actually went on about this. He went on about how e is more useful than pi or something.

pi is cool
e is the greatest

>
e is real. all arround you, there is e. a formidable number is that e.

t, computational chemists

meanwhile in the real labs....

e is less random than pi. In binary, pi seems to have an equal number of 1s and 0s, whereas e seems to have more 1s.

And yes, I know the number of each is a standard infinity.

I prefer i

Yeah, but e^(i*pi)=-1 so I think all of the above is the correct answer.

/thread

We got what we came for boys. Time to roll out.

limit of the compound interest equation is literally high school math.

True, but π has a more immediately and easily conveyed definitional geometric significance, which is both common knowledge, and furthermore requires absolutely zero knowledge of calculus/analysis, or any concept directly related to calculus (limits) to grasp.

e's visualization, "definition" etc commonly requires either some iterative process which can be tedious to show pictorially, or else requires a sophistication beyond drawing a circle.

I suddenly remember learning calculus for the first time, and the teacher asking me to provide a definition of e. I replied with the limit as n goes to infinity of (1 + 1/n)^n (as I'd learned it at the time in a previous class), which I can specifically remember the teacher rejecting in favor of a specifically calculus-based form. I don't recall which one he provided as a "definition" at the time but I'm pretty sure it was the integral from 1 to e of 1/t with respect to t, where this is set equal to one. It might not have been that form, but it was a form that required understanding of calculus as-such, whereas I was just now learning calculus for the first time, so somewhere in my brain I wanted to tell him that what he was asking of me was backwards in the sense that it requires a knowledge of calculus that I don't yet have, (we were somewhere in the midst of differential calculus I want to say, not having yet touched integragtion; I may be mis-remembering this) but I held my tongue.

I get now that what he was really doing was in some sense "picking" a definition which was most germane to the subject matter (whereas he might use another form while teaching another class), but I have since felt vindicated in that (per wiki anyway) the first historical discussions of the constant do indeed use the version that I'd given. And none of this even touched the factorial series, which seems better anyway.

ayyyyy

...

Because e is something we define to fit an observation. Pi is an incidental fact.

...

There are way more than 50 forming a spiral on the wall of my faculty.