Eulers equation, i think? leonard suskin

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jerkazoid
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the representation of an equation related to Euler's formula as presented by Leonard Susskind in a Nova episode on string theory. Participants are examining the correct notation and structure of the equation, focusing on the gamma function and its parameters.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the correctness of their transcription of the equation, suggesting they may have omitted a bracket.
  • Another participant agrees with the first and reiterates the concern about the bracket count in the numerator.
  • A different participant provides an alternative formulation of the equation, correcting the parameters and suggesting that a "two" should replace a "z" in the notation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct representation of the equation, indicating that there is no consensus on the accurate formulation at this time.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved issues regarding the notation and the correct number of brackets, as well as the specific parameters used in the equation.

jerkazoid
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
leonard susskind writes this on the chalk board a little after 1/2 way in this Nova episode on String theory

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/qt/3013_03.html
3536633512_73e6d9aedf_o.jpg

am i writing this correctly?

Γ [1-∝(s) Γ (1-∝(t)]
__________________
Γ [z-∝(s) -∝(t)]
edit spelld his name wrong
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Unless I am missing something it seems he missed a bracket. In the numerator there are 4 ( brackets and only 3 ) brackets.
 
Cyosis said:
Unless I am missing something it seems he missed a bracket. In the numerator there are 4 ( brackets and only 3 ) brackets.

but other than that... I am recreating it correctly?

ok so like this right?

Γ [1-∝(s)] Γ [1-∝(t)]
__________________
Γ [z-∝(s) -∝(t)]
 
No, the "Euler equation" they are talking about looks like this:

<br /> \frac{\Gamma(x) \Gamma(y)}{\Gamma(x+y)}<br />

So it should be:

<br /> \frac{\Gamma(1-\alpha(s)) \Gamma(1-\alpha(t))}{\Gamma(2-\alpha(s)-\alpha(t))}<br />

A two not a z.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K