1 HN user recommended this lecture1 month2020–2023score 1.5
Years with an HN recommendation, 2007–2026
HN recommends it as the explanation that makes complex exponentials click, especially for understanding the Fourier transform.
A 3Blue1Brown live lockdown math episode asking what Euler's formula e^(pi i) is actually saying. It builds intuition through exponentials, rotation and vectors landing on the unit circle.
“I was finally able to understand the role of complex numbers in the Fourier Transform.” (HN, 2023)
The key insight for me on this topic also came from 3Blue1Brown, but in a different video: it’s that e^x is NOT best thought of as repeated multiplication, but instead as the function exp(x) = 1 + x + x^2/2 + X^3/6 + x^4/24 + … After being relieved of the burden of that misconception, I was finally able to understand the role of complex numbers in the Fourier Transform. [this video]
Reframes e^x, unlocking understanding of complex numbers in Fourier
People told me that over and over but it didn’t help — because it didn’t make sense why repeated multiplication would cause rotation! Later in that video, we see a visualization of the rotation. I was able to grasp how the exp function could yield rotation where I’d never been able to understand why e*e*e*e… did. [this video]
I think that e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 is massively overrated. Because the beauty that people find is largely based on the symbols that are present and because it doesn't really say anything meaningful beyond itself. It's not even a formula or an equation - it's a result. It's like being impressed by cos(pi) = -1. The more general formula e^(ix) = cosx + i*sinx is a lot more impressive. Both because of it's implications for the rest of mathematics and aesthetically. If you look at the way the vectors at 38:00-39:20[1] cancel out to always land on the unit circle - I can get behind calling that beautiful. [1] [this video]
True, but I don't agree with what he said here @ 8:00 [this video] Is this really the case? I checked Wikipedia and MathWorld and nobody makes a distinction between e^x and exp(x). Even if it's a "white lie" for didactic reasons, I don't buy it, it will be much more confusing down the line for students. Math is about finding structures governed by some rules and then generalizing them. To me the e^x defined as repeated multiplication conceptually is the same thing as the exponential function, just over broader domain. Why? You can interpolate between integer-valued X's using geometric mean. e^3 = sqrt(e^2 * e^4). What stops you from interpolating this recursively to achieve in the limit the exponential function over real numbers?
Video list and Hacker News comment labels from HackerTube (prompted by @karpathy), released under ODC-By 1.0, built on the open-index/hacker-news archive. Hacker News data is provided by Y Combinator; comments remain the work of their authors. Video titles, channel names and thumbnails belong to their creators and are shown via YouTube. HackerTube Watch is an unofficial edition. Data export of 2026-10-31.
Plays via YouTube's privacy-enhanced embed
4 Hacker News comments
From the HN archive; up to 20 kept per video, favoring different commenters. Recommendations first.
Citations, criticism and jokes
Read more
Read more