Comments on: Bill Payment Win

By: solutions for payment

solutions for payment — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 20:09:37 +0000

Just want to say your article is as astonishing. The clearness for your post is simply nice and i could suppose you’re an expert on this subject. Fine with your permission let me to clutch your RSS feed to stay updated with impending post. Thank you one million and please keep up the rewarding work.

By: annuity lump sum payment

annuity lump sum payment — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 01:37:16 +0000

Thanks for another excellent post. The place else may just anybody get that kind of info in such an ideal method of writing? I’ve a presentation next week, and I am at the look for such info.

By: ...

... — Sun, 23 May 2010 21:22:24 +0000

that “i” is a two… poorly resolved image throws you off

By: attorney

attorney — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 02:13:22 +0000

very clever.

By: Toby

Toby — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:51:45 +0000

I just love this one…

By: matzo

matzo — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 21:03:41 +0000

dammit it’s not a iota. It’s not a two either. It’s an i. It clearly has a dot above it. (Something the greek symbol iota does NOT have! Neither does the symbol ’2′ actualy.)

By: someone

someone — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:35:34 +0000

Equation:
{failblog/Winblog-vrizon communication+the stupidity of bush(which equal to infinity BTW)=Comment……

By: Stefan

Stefan — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:02:23 +0000

Word, dude. The actual fail of this pic is the caption.

By: Stefan

Stefan — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:59:22 +0000

big time

By: Stefan

Stefan — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:57:10 +0000

Nice proof.

By: Yarrrg

Yarrrg — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:31:11 +0000

It’s .002. This picture is as old as the internets, and you can google a sharper picture of the check and it’s e^(i*pi) + (sum n = 1 -> infinity) 1/2^n + .002$, which is -1+1+.002, which is .2 cents. I’m done feeding the trolls for now.

By: BroJoe

BroJoe — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:55:15 +0000

it’s e^(i*pi), not e^(2*pi)

By: TraumaPony

TraumaPony — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:49:14 +0000

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.002+%2B+e%5E%28i*pi%29+%2B+%28sum+1%2F%282%5En%29%2C+n+%3D+1+to+infinity%29

Fixed that for you.

By: isilex

isilex — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:35:51 +0000

Math Computed:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.002+%2B+e%5E%282pi%29+%2B+%28sum+1%2F%282%5En%29%2C+n+%3D+1+to+infinity%29

By: jeffE

jeffE — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 01:36:35 +0000

i peint all my checks like that ☺

By: BigDaddy

BigDaddy — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 05:47:53 +0000

explanation fail

exp (i*pi)=cos(pi)+i*sin(pi)=-1+0=-1

536, it seems. Jackass

‘She’s hot, yes. But can she solve stochastic differential equations?’

By: Shadow_Shot

Shadow_Shot — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:49:10 +0000

of course they would they would just call the guy first.

By: Shadow_Shot

Shadow_Shot — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:45:12 +0000

I am sorry but it is actually the symbol iota or the greek I; that is okay I thought it was it was Tau or the greek t

By: miaispirazione

miaispirazione — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 01:52:58 +0000

i wonder if the bank would accept it

By: Crystal-Unclear

Crystal-Unclear — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:12:06 +0000

I’m clearly unclear that your statement is within reasonable clarity. Just to be clear, in case you’re unclear.

By: Fortron

Fortron — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:05:10 +0000

i isnt -1 its the square root of -1 so in other words i squared equals -1

By: Jacob

Jacob — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 03:47:09 +0000

Pi spelling fail…

By: The Mosh

The Mosh — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:59:27 +0000

Actually this probably took him about 30 seconds. Since he only intended to pay them the 0.2 cents, all he had to do was write that and then add two things that cancel, which he did. So yeah, it’s a win.

By: MC Wrench

MC Wrench — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:34:54 +0000

i didn’t read all comments, so i don’t know if anyone noticed yet.
but i have to say, that the sum of 1/2^n is 2, because n can be 0;1;2… so there is 1/2^0+1/2^1+… and thats actually 1+1/2+1/4+… ->2

By: Psycho-Tic

Psycho-Tic — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 04:11:43 +0000

Now thats how you get back at those annoying dept sharks!
Then again, bankers are normally good at maths, so this wouldn’t really work… but atleast you had fun!

By: sun

sun — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 22:20:44 +0000

calculus win!

By: Lye On You

Lye On You — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:45:15 +0000

Fail! i^1 = i. Anyways, its a 2.

By: Velcurry

Velcurry — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 12:45:00 +0000

You to can hear how bad verizon failed on this on .

recording – http://imgs.xkcd.com/verizon_billing.mp3

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 12:06:14 +0000

the beginning of a web marriage or cybersex?

By: Joe's Mamma

Joe's Mamma — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:22:44 +0000

And the amount of time it took the loser to work this out is completely non-chargeable to Verizon. What a WIN…

Not…

By: Joe's Mamma

Joe's Mamma — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:20:16 +0000

Shit, you need to get a life, seriously dude.

By: Joe's Mamma

Joe's Mamma — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:17:23 +0000

Ragidandy : Does physics make your eyes hurt???

Does E=mC^i?

No, because in bigmouthing your supposed knowledge, you mistaked a “2″ for an “i”.

pWned… and you are a LITTLE bit of a math nerd, indeed…

By: Nosfer

Nosfer — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:08:27 +0000

e^iπ=-1 according to euler’s identity (it’s an i the imaginary unit and not a 2) and sum of 1/2^n=1 so the total money is 0.002.

By: VZW4LIFE

VZW4LIFE — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 15:01:09 +0000

FIRST OF ALL THERE IS ONE OBVIOUS PROBLEM WITH THE CHECK… ITS MADE OUT TO VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE OF .002 CENTS OR .002 DOLLARS BECAUSE VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS ONLY PROVIDES LANDLINE AND INTERNET SERVICES..ONLY VERIZON WIRELESS PROVIDES CELLPHONES AND MOBILE BROADBAND ACESS SOOO IF THIS CHECK WAS REALLY GOING TO BE SENT TO ANYONE IT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO VERIZON WIRELESS … I WORK FOR VERIZON WIRELESS AND THERE IS NO SUCH” BILLING DEPARTMENT” THERE IS ONLY A CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPT WHICH ACTS AS BILLING, ACCOUNTING, TECH SUPPORT, RETENTION ….ALLTHAT! SO… IF YOUR SAYING SOMEONE XSFRD YOU TO A BILLING DEPT I KNOW THAT LINE OF YOUR STORY TO BE FALSE..NOT POSSIBLE.. AND QUITE AMUSING TO SAY THE LEAST!

By: Anne

Anne — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 05:43:57 +0000

Eh he read the check wrong + bombed on the math stuff too XD So… Win + Super-Fail?

By: Anne

Anne — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 05:42:10 +0000

its own*

By: Anne

Anne — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 05:39:35 +0000

Of course, it is funny on it’s own. However understanding the math, that the check is made out for the amount .002 + -1 +1 = 0.002, references something even funnier. It references a claim made by a Canadian Verizon customer who was quoted a data plan at .002 cents/ KB but was charged $.002 (separated by a factor of 100). Yikes! Imagine multiplying a section of any bill by 100! Good job on the basic math Verizon. And finally, it’s funny that the person who made the label underneath didn’t totally understand what Mr. Munroe had meant either.

By: I haz maths

I haz maths — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:59:51 +0000

Is its teh cherry pi?

By: Zee

Zee — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:16:57 +0000

question, question. I am not very good in math..however, i would just like to ask: isn’t i (as the imaginary number you’re talking about) the square root of negative one? hihi.. just to clarify. if it is so, then i understand de Moivre’s formula now (well,it’s the first time i encountered this one). thanks for the info, very comprehensive;-)

By: crazy kitty

crazy kitty — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:42:30 +0000

what now?

By: Monkey

Monkey — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:26:24 +0000

What Roy referred to is the fact that in coming up with the definition of the complex field in terms of existing fields required the definition of an element who when multiplied with itself gave the result -1. Therefore it turns out that i=sqrt(-1) but ONLY as long as the meaning of sqrt(-1) is understood. If you ask what *the* value of sqrt(-1) is you haven’t understood square roots. (-i)^2 = -i*-i = i^2. The problem is that sqrt(-1) is ambiguous (satisfied by both i an d -i) but i^2=-1 is not ambiguous. The other major problem is that dumbass spanners like RC exist. They say other people are full of crap when they have no idea what the person they are accusing is talking about because they are too dumb to realize they are a mental capacity FAIL. twat.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:10:59 +0000

it doesn’t approximate to -1.

e^(i*pi) EQUALS -1 EXACTLY.

The reason why is: The Maclaurin series for sin(x) is x – (x^3)/3! + (x^5)/5! – (x^7)/7!, and so on.
The Maclaurin series for cos(x) is 1 – (x^2)/2! + (x^4)/4! – (x^6)/6!, and so on.
The Maclaurin series for e^x is simply 1 + x + (x^2)/2! + (x^3)/3!, and so on.
So, if we plug in i*x instead of x, we get e^x = 1 + ix – (x^2)/2! – (i*x^3)/3! + (x^4)/4! + (i*x^5)/5! – (x^6)/6!, and so on. The signs change because, obviously, i^2=-1.
Now, if we separate the real and imaginary terms, we get the following.
e^ix = (1 – (x^2)/2! + (x^4)/4! – (x^6)/6!…) + i*(x – (x^3)/3! + (x^5)/5! – (x^7)/7!…)
By substituting in the MacLaurin Series for sin and cos, we get:
e^ix = cos(x) + i*sin(x).
This is Euler’s Formula.
So, in the case that x = pi, e^(i*pi)= cos(pi) + i*sin(pi), or in other words, e^(i*pi) = -1 + i*0 = -1.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:28:27 +0000

It’s a nice try, but it’s not DeMoivre’s formula. It’s Euler’s formula with an argument of pi.

By: Shizukarumi

Shizukarumi — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 06:02:00 +0000

NO.

By: Shizukarumi

Shizukarumi — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 06:01:24 +0000

YES.

By: Shizukarumi

Shizukarumi — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 05:59:16 +0000

WHAT CALCULATOR ARE YOU USING? AND CHECK THAT YOU TYPED EVERYTHING RIGHT.

By: Shizukarumi

Shizukarumi — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 05:57:59 +0000

OMG FOR THE LOVE OF JESUS CHRIST IS A SUM, SUM, SUM, SUM,SUM!!!!! GET IT? IS A SUM FROM 1 TO INFITINY SO IT EQUALS 1!. NO IT IS NOT A LIMIT.

By: Shizukarumi

Shizukarumi — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 05:56:31 +0000

TI89 YOU GUYS!

By: Shizukarumi

Shizukarumi — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 05:55:05 +0000

YEAH. and im a girl

By: Shizukarumi

Shizukarumi — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 05:51:38 +0000

IS NOT A LIMIT IS A SUM, SUUUUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FROM 1 TO INFINITY = 1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!