By "much nicer", I was merely attempting to point out that drblast's formula: e^(tau*i/2)+1=0 could be stated as: e^(i*tau) = 1 As in the article.

By "much nicer", I was merely attempting to point out that drblast's formula: e^(tau*i/2)+1=0 could be stated as: e^(i*tau) = 1 As in the article. Whether that's intrinsically "better" than Euler's Identity is a different question, but not what I was discussing here.