Jamie123

You're absolutely right. A friend told me it was April 1, and I believed her. Now I look in my diary I see that April Fool's Day is actually Easter Monday.
No worries though. Some families have a tradition of MORE eggs on Easter Monday - so play the "jolly jape" then!. 

You're absolutely right. A friend told me it was April 1, and I believed her. Now I look in my diary I see that April Fool's Day is actually Easter Monday.
No worries though. Some families have a tradition of MORE eggs on Easter Monday - so play the "jolly jape" then!. 

Dang.  You got my hopes up, but in the US, Easter Sunday is March 31, while April Fools day is April 1. 
Furiously googling, I realize there's a lot I don't know about Easter.  Astronomical Easter, Gregorian Easter, and Julian Easter?  Are Americans Gregorian Easter celebrators?  If so, we'll have to wait until 2029 for an Easter on April Fool's day.
Honestly, that will test my ability to prioritize important things.  My often-irreverent sense of humor should take 2nd place to celebrating the birth of my Savior.  I will be challenged more than usual.

As you know, Easter Sunday this year falls on April Fool's day.
So here's the idea. Whereas normally, on the Saturday night before Easter Sunday, you put on your Easter Bunny outfit (real or metaphorical) and hide chocolate eggs all over the house for the kids to search for on Easter morning, this time... you don't. Then in the morning, after the kids have searched fruitlessly for about an hour, you shout "April Fool!"
Not only will your kids find this a "delightfully amusing" prank, you'll save money on Easter eggs too!

As you know, Easter Sunday this year falls on April Fool's day.
So here's the idea. Whereas normally, on the Saturday night before Easter Sunday, you put on your Easter Bunny outfit (real or metaphorical) and hide chocolate eggs all over the house for the kids to search for on Easter morning, this time... you don't. Then in the morning, after the kids have searched fruitlessly for about an hour, you shout "April Fool!"
Not only will your kids find this a "delightfully amusing" prank, you'll save money on Easter eggs too!

As you know, Easter Sunday this year falls on April Fool's day.
So here's the idea. Whereas normally, on the Saturday night before Easter Sunday, you put on your Easter Bunny outfit (real or metaphorical) and hide chocolate eggs all over the house for the kids to search for on Easter morning, this time... you don't. Then in the morning, after the kids have searched fruitlessly for about an hour, you shout "April Fool!"
Not only will your kids find this a "delightfully amusing" prank, you'll save money on Easter eggs too!

Pussy cat buys fish  from fish shop with leaves instead of banknotes:
 

Pussy cat buys fish  from fish shop with leaves instead of banknotes:
 

Yesed?

My dad said this was his feelings as we each moved out. He thought the dinner conversations had finally gotten more interesting.

I agree. In mathematics, "equality" generally means "identity", as you note. But when we say i^i={some value}, we are saying that it includes that value, not that it is identical to that value. We can still use the idea of identity when, for example, using a specific solution as the value in another expression, but we have to understand that the meaning of "=" is not the same as in 4+3=7. I'm sure someone has formalized this somewhere, but I've never really seen this topic addressed.

I had high hopes for this video, but it doesn't really get to the nub of the problem: it only nitpicks (quite validly) at one of the intermediate steps, but proves the answer us numnuts arrived at by dumb luck happens to be correct.
The major issue for me is that if i^i is 0.20787958 and also 0.000388203 (and a whole bunch of other numbers) then by the foundational axiom that if A=B and B=C then A=C we must conclude that 0.20787958=0.000388203, which is as wrong as saying that 1=-1, which was Presh Talwalkar's objection to our "numnut" approach.
Now that always reminds me of...

...though no one pretends that the Trinity is anything but a mystery.
The only solution I can think of is that "equality" in the statement x=i^i does not identify an equivalency, but a kind of "predicate" which applies not only to x but to other numbers as well. We use this sort of language in "big O" notation anyway for example:

does not imply that f(x)=g(x). It is merely a statement about how fast the functions grow. (I've always thought big O notation was very sloppy, and I hardly ever use it.)
We could define the answer as an infinite set

 

I had high hopes for this video, but it doesn't really get to the nub of the problem: it only nitpicks (quite validly) at one of the intermediate steps, but proves the answer us numnuts arrived at by dumb luck happens to be correct.
The major issue for me is that if i^i is 0.20787958 and also 0.000388203 (and a whole bunch of other numbers) then by the foundational axiom that if A=B and B=C then A=C we must conclude that 0.20787958=0.000388203, which is as wrong as saying that 1=-1, which was Presh Talwalkar's objection to our "numnut" approach.
Now that always reminds me of...

...though no one pretends that the Trinity is anything but a mystery.
The only solution I can think of is that "equality" in the statement x=i^i does not identify an equivalency, but a kind of "predicate" which applies not only to x but to other numbers as well. We use this sort of language in "big O" notation anyway for example:

does not imply that f(x)=g(x). It is merely a statement about how fast the functions grow. (I've always thought big O notation was very sloppy, and I hardly ever use it.)
We could define the answer as an infinite set

 

Rather than admit @Carborendum's cleverness, Imma dig in and fight back.   Admit it!  Your math might be good, but your punctuation stinks!

It comes around every 2nπ. Period. (I realize it's "full stop" for you Brits, but that would ruin the pun.)

Strangely enough, as a Latter-day Saint, this diagram makes perfect sense.

I had high hopes for this video, but it doesn't really get to the nub of the problem: it only nitpicks (quite validly) at one of the intermediate steps, but proves the answer us numnuts arrived at by dumb luck happens to be correct.
The major issue for me is that if i^i is 0.20787958 and also 0.000388203 (and a whole bunch of other numbers) then by the foundational axiom that if A=B and B=C then A=C we must conclude that 0.20787958=0.000388203, which is as wrong as saying that 1=-1, which was Presh Talwalkar's objection to our "numnut" approach.
Now that always reminds me of...

...though no one pretends that the Trinity is anything but a mystery.
The only solution I can think of is that "equality" in the statement x=i^i does not identify an equivalency, but a kind of "predicate" which applies not only to x but to other numbers as well. We use this sort of language in "big O" notation anyway for example:

does not imply that f(x)=g(x). It is merely a statement about how fast the functions grow. (I've always thought big O notation was very sloppy, and I hardly ever use it.)
We could define the answer as an infinite set

 

Where is @mordorbund when you need him?
I didn't say the answer was really 5.
I said the answer was really 5!
I can't believe no one got that.

This is clearly a sin.  Jesus commanded that our i be single.

I am very interested in philosophy, though I'm not as involved with it anything like enough to call it a "hobby". When my daughter was little I used to talk about it with her. Sometimes I would read to her from Plato's Republic to see what she made of it. As she got older though, she started studying philosophy as a subject at school, and our conversations became something like this:
Me: So you've been learning about Kant? Didn't he believe in dualism?
Daughter: No, that was Descartes.
Me: Kant believed in dualism too. The noumenal world and the phenomenal world?
Wife: If you're going to disagree with her, why ask her in the first place?
Me: I'm sorry, I may not know much about Kant, but I do know for a fact that Kantian dualism is a thing. I have read about it.
Wife: Why do you have to argue all the time?
Me: We're not arguing, we're having a conversation.