What exactly ARE $pi$ and $e$? [closed]












6














First of all, apologies if this is a bad question. I don't really know how to phrase it.



I first got introduced to $pi$ in elementary school, where it was presented as a ratio for a circle's area. I thought it was some special number that had to do with circles. You can imagine my confusion when I found it popping up in stuff that seemingly had nothing to do with circles, like in the Wallis formula or the Basel Problem. Same with $e$. I thought it was this financial growth thing, so I got pretty confused when it showed up in stuff like the Probability Distribution, and Euler's identity. Right now, they seem like two magic numbers with magical properties - same thing with $cos$ and $sin$ - magical equations that give you ratios of lengths.



Could someone explain what the heck exactly is the significance of $e$ and $pi$? Beyond circles, beyond geometry. Because they certainly seem to be more than just that.










share|cite|improve this question















closed as too broad by José Carlos Santos, Brahadeesh, GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會, Shaun, amWhy Dec 11 '18 at 12:21


Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.











  • 4




    what exactly is $2$? Is it the smallest prime number or is it defined by $ln(e^2)$
    – dezdichado
    Dec 11 '18 at 6:35






  • 4




    If you google search “3b1b Wallis pi” or “3b1b Basel pi”, you’ll see that 3 blue 1 brown has created videos for pi’s connections to the Wallis product and the Basel problem. Honestly 2 of the most awesome videos ever.
    – D.R.
    Dec 11 '18 at 6:36






  • 1




    $e^{ipi} + 1 = 0$.
    – Michael
    Dec 11 '18 at 6:41






  • 2




    @AaronCruz : The phrasing I gave is generally viewed as being the "most beautiful." The equation $e^{i pi} + 1 = 0$ contains the main fundamental constants of math ($0,1,i,e,pi$), they all occur once and only once, and the main operations of arithmetic (addition, multiplication, exponentiation), all once and only once. And there is nothing else cluttering the equation. You cannot beat that aesthetic! (See also The Art of Mathematics by Jerry King).
    – Michael
    Dec 11 '18 at 6:53








  • 1




    I concur with Michael. $e^{ipi}+1=0$ holds more wonder in its presentation for me.
    – Clayton
    Dec 11 '18 at 7:03
















6














First of all, apologies if this is a bad question. I don't really know how to phrase it.



I first got introduced to $pi$ in elementary school, where it was presented as a ratio for a circle's area. I thought it was some special number that had to do with circles. You can imagine my confusion when I found it popping up in stuff that seemingly had nothing to do with circles, like in the Wallis formula or the Basel Problem. Same with $e$. I thought it was this financial growth thing, so I got pretty confused when it showed up in stuff like the Probability Distribution, and Euler's identity. Right now, they seem like two magic numbers with magical properties - same thing with $cos$ and $sin$ - magical equations that give you ratios of lengths.



Could someone explain what the heck exactly is the significance of $e$ and $pi$? Beyond circles, beyond geometry. Because they certainly seem to be more than just that.










share|cite|improve this question















closed as too broad by José Carlos Santos, Brahadeesh, GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會, Shaun, amWhy Dec 11 '18 at 12:21


Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.











  • 4




    what exactly is $2$? Is it the smallest prime number or is it defined by $ln(e^2)$
    – dezdichado
    Dec 11 '18 at 6:35






  • 4




    If you google search “3b1b Wallis pi” or “3b1b Basel pi”, you’ll see that 3 blue 1 brown has created videos for pi’s connections to the Wallis product and the Basel problem. Honestly 2 of the most awesome videos ever.
    – D.R.
    Dec 11 '18 at 6:36






  • 1




    $e^{ipi} + 1 = 0$.
    – Michael
    Dec 11 '18 at 6:41






  • 2




    @AaronCruz : The phrasing I gave is generally viewed as being the "most beautiful." The equation $e^{i pi} + 1 = 0$ contains the main fundamental constants of math ($0,1,i,e,pi$), they all occur once and only once, and the main operations of arithmetic (addition, multiplication, exponentiation), all once and only once. And there is nothing else cluttering the equation. You cannot beat that aesthetic! (See also The Art of Mathematics by Jerry King).
    – Michael
    Dec 11 '18 at 6:53








  • 1




    I concur with Michael. $e^{ipi}+1=0$ holds more wonder in its presentation for me.
    – Clayton
    Dec 11 '18 at 7:03














6












6








6


3





First of all, apologies if this is a bad question. I don't really know how to phrase it.



I first got introduced to $pi$ in elementary school, where it was presented as a ratio for a circle's area. I thought it was some special number that had to do with circles. You can imagine my confusion when I found it popping up in stuff that seemingly had nothing to do with circles, like in the Wallis formula or the Basel Problem. Same with $e$. I thought it was this financial growth thing, so I got pretty confused when it showed up in stuff like the Probability Distribution, and Euler's identity. Right now, they seem like two magic numbers with magical properties - same thing with $cos$ and $sin$ - magical equations that give you ratios of lengths.



Could someone explain what the heck exactly is the significance of $e$ and $pi$? Beyond circles, beyond geometry. Because they certainly seem to be more than just that.










share|cite|improve this question















First of all, apologies if this is a bad question. I don't really know how to phrase it.



I first got introduced to $pi$ in elementary school, where it was presented as a ratio for a circle's area. I thought it was some special number that had to do with circles. You can imagine my confusion when I found it popping up in stuff that seemingly had nothing to do with circles, like in the Wallis formula or the Basel Problem. Same with $e$. I thought it was this financial growth thing, so I got pretty confused when it showed up in stuff like the Probability Distribution, and Euler's identity. Right now, they seem like two magic numbers with magical properties - same thing with $cos$ and $sin$ - magical equations that give you ratios of lengths.



Could someone explain what the heck exactly is the significance of $e$ and $pi$? Beyond circles, beyond geometry. Because they certainly seem to be more than just that.







real-analysis complex-analysis number-theory






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 11 '18 at 6:39









Andrei

11.3k21026




11.3k21026










asked Dec 11 '18 at 6:24









Bob Johnson

334




334




closed as too broad by José Carlos Santos, Brahadeesh, GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會, Shaun, amWhy Dec 11 '18 at 12:21


Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.






closed as too broad by José Carlos Santos, Brahadeesh, GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會, Shaun, amWhy Dec 11 '18 at 12:21


Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.










  • 4




    what exactly is $2$? Is it the smallest prime number or is it defined by $ln(e^2)$
    – dezdichado
    Dec 11 '18 at 6:35






  • 4




    If you google search “3b1b Wallis pi” or “3b1b Basel pi”, you’ll see that 3 blue 1 brown has created videos for pi’s connections to the Wallis product and the Basel problem. Honestly 2 of the most awesome videos ever.
    – D.R.
    Dec 11 '18 at 6:36






  • 1




    $e^{ipi} + 1 = 0$.
    – Michael
    Dec 11 '18 at 6:41






  • 2




    @AaronCruz : The phrasing I gave is generally viewed as being the "most beautiful." The equation $e^{i pi} + 1 = 0$ contains the main fundamental constants of math ($0,1,i,e,pi$), they all occur once and only once, and the main operations of arithmetic (addition, multiplication, exponentiation), all once and only once. And there is nothing else cluttering the equation. You cannot beat that aesthetic! (See also The Art of Mathematics by Jerry King).
    – Michael
    Dec 11 '18 at 6:53








  • 1




    I concur with Michael. $e^{ipi}+1=0$ holds more wonder in its presentation for me.
    – Clayton
    Dec 11 '18 at 7:03














  • 4




    what exactly is $2$? Is it the smallest prime number or is it defined by $ln(e^2)$
    – dezdichado
    Dec 11 '18 at 6:35






  • 4




    If you google search “3b1b Wallis pi” or “3b1b Basel pi”, you’ll see that 3 blue 1 brown has created videos for pi’s connections to the Wallis product and the Basel problem. Honestly 2 of the most awesome videos ever.
    – D.R.
    Dec 11 '18 at 6:36






  • 1




    $e^{ipi} + 1 = 0$.
    – Michael
    Dec 11 '18 at 6:41






  • 2




    @AaronCruz : The phrasing I gave is generally viewed as being the "most beautiful." The equation $e^{i pi} + 1 = 0$ contains the main fundamental constants of math ($0,1,i,e,pi$), they all occur once and only once, and the main operations of arithmetic (addition, multiplication, exponentiation), all once and only once. And there is nothing else cluttering the equation. You cannot beat that aesthetic! (See also The Art of Mathematics by Jerry King).
    – Michael
    Dec 11 '18 at 6:53








  • 1




    I concur with Michael. $e^{ipi}+1=0$ holds more wonder in its presentation for me.
    – Clayton
    Dec 11 '18 at 7:03








4




4




what exactly is $2$? Is it the smallest prime number or is it defined by $ln(e^2)$
– dezdichado
Dec 11 '18 at 6:35




what exactly is $2$? Is it the smallest prime number or is it defined by $ln(e^2)$
– dezdichado
Dec 11 '18 at 6:35




4




4




If you google search “3b1b Wallis pi” or “3b1b Basel pi”, you’ll see that 3 blue 1 brown has created videos for pi’s connections to the Wallis product and the Basel problem. Honestly 2 of the most awesome videos ever.
– D.R.
Dec 11 '18 at 6:36




If you google search “3b1b Wallis pi” or “3b1b Basel pi”, you’ll see that 3 blue 1 brown has created videos for pi’s connections to the Wallis product and the Basel problem. Honestly 2 of the most awesome videos ever.
– D.R.
Dec 11 '18 at 6:36




1




1




$e^{ipi} + 1 = 0$.
– Michael
Dec 11 '18 at 6:41




$e^{ipi} + 1 = 0$.
– Michael
Dec 11 '18 at 6:41




2




2




@AaronCruz : The phrasing I gave is generally viewed as being the "most beautiful." The equation $e^{i pi} + 1 = 0$ contains the main fundamental constants of math ($0,1,i,e,pi$), they all occur once and only once, and the main operations of arithmetic (addition, multiplication, exponentiation), all once and only once. And there is nothing else cluttering the equation. You cannot beat that aesthetic! (See also The Art of Mathematics by Jerry King).
– Michael
Dec 11 '18 at 6:53






@AaronCruz : The phrasing I gave is generally viewed as being the "most beautiful." The equation $e^{i pi} + 1 = 0$ contains the main fundamental constants of math ($0,1,i,e,pi$), they all occur once and only once, and the main operations of arithmetic (addition, multiplication, exponentiation), all once and only once. And there is nothing else cluttering the equation. You cannot beat that aesthetic! (See also The Art of Mathematics by Jerry King).
– Michael
Dec 11 '18 at 6:53






1




1




I concur with Michael. $e^{ipi}+1=0$ holds more wonder in its presentation for me.
– Clayton
Dec 11 '18 at 7:03




I concur with Michael. $e^{ipi}+1=0$ holds more wonder in its presentation for me.
– Clayton
Dec 11 '18 at 7:03










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















6














This may surprise you, but every appearance of $pi$, no matter how crazy-looking it is, traces to the involvement of a circle somewhere.



For example, where does the Wallis product come from? From evaluating $frac{sin x}{x}=prod_{kge 1}(1-frac{x^2}{k^2})$ at $x=frac{pi}{2}$ (i.e. a quarter-turn from $x=0$). And though we teach trigonometry to students with right-angled triangles, you can embed those triangles in a circle of which the hypotenuse is a radius, and generalise the cosine and sine beyond acute angles so that, if in the circle $x^2+y^2=1$ we consider a radius $(1,,0)$ and another forming an anticlockwise angle $theta$ with it, the latter meets the circle at $(costheta,,sintheta)$. So ultimately, these functions are defined with circles.



What about the Basel problem? We can prove $sum_{kge 1}k^{-2}=frac{pi^2}{6}$ by using the fact that acute $x$ satisfy $cot^2xle x^{-2}lecsc^2 x=cot^2 x$, which we sum over $xin{frac{kpi}{2m+1}|1le kle m}$. (The sum of the squared cotangents can be obtained from a polynomial's coefficients.) So once again, it leads back to trigonometry, hence circles.



Similarly, every appearance of $e$, no matter how crazy-looking it is, traces to either of its equivalent definitions (1) $e:=lim_{ntoinfty}(1+frac{1}{n})^n$ or (2) $frac{d}{dx}e^x=e^x,,e>0$ . (1) implies $(1+frac{x}{n})^napprox e^x$ for $xll n$, from which we can deduce the central limit theorem using characteristic functions. But this proof also uses $e^{ix}=cos x+isin x$, which can be proven by combining (2) with a proof that $cos x,,sin x$ satisfy $y''=-y$.



Why does $pi$ keep coming up? Because multivariable symmetries frequently concern tracing over the surface of a circle, sphere or hypersphere, which traces back to circles. WHy does $e$ keep coming up? Because so many problems hinge on rates of change, which automatically include exponential functions if the differential equations involved take a certain form.






share|cite|improve this answer





























    1














    I would recommend you read the article on wikipedia about the definition of $pi$. It is suggested to start from the cosine function, which can be defined as a series or a differential equation. The reason is that usually in calculus you learn series and derivatives before integral. If you have this notions, then one can derive the circumference of the circle by integration, so $pi$ as defined in antiquity is a consequence of a calculation performed 3000 years later. Similar with $e$, if you start with either the Taylor series representation or the basic definition that $frac{de^x}{dx}=e^x$, you can then derive all properties you described in your question.






    share|cite|improve this answer




























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      6














      This may surprise you, but every appearance of $pi$, no matter how crazy-looking it is, traces to the involvement of a circle somewhere.



      For example, where does the Wallis product come from? From evaluating $frac{sin x}{x}=prod_{kge 1}(1-frac{x^2}{k^2})$ at $x=frac{pi}{2}$ (i.e. a quarter-turn from $x=0$). And though we teach trigonometry to students with right-angled triangles, you can embed those triangles in a circle of which the hypotenuse is a radius, and generalise the cosine and sine beyond acute angles so that, if in the circle $x^2+y^2=1$ we consider a radius $(1,,0)$ and another forming an anticlockwise angle $theta$ with it, the latter meets the circle at $(costheta,,sintheta)$. So ultimately, these functions are defined with circles.



      What about the Basel problem? We can prove $sum_{kge 1}k^{-2}=frac{pi^2}{6}$ by using the fact that acute $x$ satisfy $cot^2xle x^{-2}lecsc^2 x=cot^2 x$, which we sum over $xin{frac{kpi}{2m+1}|1le kle m}$. (The sum of the squared cotangents can be obtained from a polynomial's coefficients.) So once again, it leads back to trigonometry, hence circles.



      Similarly, every appearance of $e$, no matter how crazy-looking it is, traces to either of its equivalent definitions (1) $e:=lim_{ntoinfty}(1+frac{1}{n})^n$ or (2) $frac{d}{dx}e^x=e^x,,e>0$ . (1) implies $(1+frac{x}{n})^napprox e^x$ for $xll n$, from which we can deduce the central limit theorem using characteristic functions. But this proof also uses $e^{ix}=cos x+isin x$, which can be proven by combining (2) with a proof that $cos x,,sin x$ satisfy $y''=-y$.



      Why does $pi$ keep coming up? Because multivariable symmetries frequently concern tracing over the surface of a circle, sphere or hypersphere, which traces back to circles. WHy does $e$ keep coming up? Because so many problems hinge on rates of change, which automatically include exponential functions if the differential equations involved take a certain form.






      share|cite|improve this answer


























        6














        This may surprise you, but every appearance of $pi$, no matter how crazy-looking it is, traces to the involvement of a circle somewhere.



        For example, where does the Wallis product come from? From evaluating $frac{sin x}{x}=prod_{kge 1}(1-frac{x^2}{k^2})$ at $x=frac{pi}{2}$ (i.e. a quarter-turn from $x=0$). And though we teach trigonometry to students with right-angled triangles, you can embed those triangles in a circle of which the hypotenuse is a radius, and generalise the cosine and sine beyond acute angles so that, if in the circle $x^2+y^2=1$ we consider a radius $(1,,0)$ and another forming an anticlockwise angle $theta$ with it, the latter meets the circle at $(costheta,,sintheta)$. So ultimately, these functions are defined with circles.



        What about the Basel problem? We can prove $sum_{kge 1}k^{-2}=frac{pi^2}{6}$ by using the fact that acute $x$ satisfy $cot^2xle x^{-2}lecsc^2 x=cot^2 x$, which we sum over $xin{frac{kpi}{2m+1}|1le kle m}$. (The sum of the squared cotangents can be obtained from a polynomial's coefficients.) So once again, it leads back to trigonometry, hence circles.



        Similarly, every appearance of $e$, no matter how crazy-looking it is, traces to either of its equivalent definitions (1) $e:=lim_{ntoinfty}(1+frac{1}{n})^n$ or (2) $frac{d}{dx}e^x=e^x,,e>0$ . (1) implies $(1+frac{x}{n})^napprox e^x$ for $xll n$, from which we can deduce the central limit theorem using characteristic functions. But this proof also uses $e^{ix}=cos x+isin x$, which can be proven by combining (2) with a proof that $cos x,,sin x$ satisfy $y''=-y$.



        Why does $pi$ keep coming up? Because multivariable symmetries frequently concern tracing over the surface of a circle, sphere or hypersphere, which traces back to circles. WHy does $e$ keep coming up? Because so many problems hinge on rates of change, which automatically include exponential functions if the differential equations involved take a certain form.






        share|cite|improve this answer
























          6












          6








          6






          This may surprise you, but every appearance of $pi$, no matter how crazy-looking it is, traces to the involvement of a circle somewhere.



          For example, where does the Wallis product come from? From evaluating $frac{sin x}{x}=prod_{kge 1}(1-frac{x^2}{k^2})$ at $x=frac{pi}{2}$ (i.e. a quarter-turn from $x=0$). And though we teach trigonometry to students with right-angled triangles, you can embed those triangles in a circle of which the hypotenuse is a radius, and generalise the cosine and sine beyond acute angles so that, if in the circle $x^2+y^2=1$ we consider a radius $(1,,0)$ and another forming an anticlockwise angle $theta$ with it, the latter meets the circle at $(costheta,,sintheta)$. So ultimately, these functions are defined with circles.



          What about the Basel problem? We can prove $sum_{kge 1}k^{-2}=frac{pi^2}{6}$ by using the fact that acute $x$ satisfy $cot^2xle x^{-2}lecsc^2 x=cot^2 x$, which we sum over $xin{frac{kpi}{2m+1}|1le kle m}$. (The sum of the squared cotangents can be obtained from a polynomial's coefficients.) So once again, it leads back to trigonometry, hence circles.



          Similarly, every appearance of $e$, no matter how crazy-looking it is, traces to either of its equivalent definitions (1) $e:=lim_{ntoinfty}(1+frac{1}{n})^n$ or (2) $frac{d}{dx}e^x=e^x,,e>0$ . (1) implies $(1+frac{x}{n})^napprox e^x$ for $xll n$, from which we can deduce the central limit theorem using characteristic functions. But this proof also uses $e^{ix}=cos x+isin x$, which can be proven by combining (2) with a proof that $cos x,,sin x$ satisfy $y''=-y$.



          Why does $pi$ keep coming up? Because multivariable symmetries frequently concern tracing over the surface of a circle, sphere or hypersphere, which traces back to circles. WHy does $e$ keep coming up? Because so many problems hinge on rates of change, which automatically include exponential functions if the differential equations involved take a certain form.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          This may surprise you, but every appearance of $pi$, no matter how crazy-looking it is, traces to the involvement of a circle somewhere.



          For example, where does the Wallis product come from? From evaluating $frac{sin x}{x}=prod_{kge 1}(1-frac{x^2}{k^2})$ at $x=frac{pi}{2}$ (i.e. a quarter-turn from $x=0$). And though we teach trigonometry to students with right-angled triangles, you can embed those triangles in a circle of which the hypotenuse is a radius, and generalise the cosine and sine beyond acute angles so that, if in the circle $x^2+y^2=1$ we consider a radius $(1,,0)$ and another forming an anticlockwise angle $theta$ with it, the latter meets the circle at $(costheta,,sintheta)$. So ultimately, these functions are defined with circles.



          What about the Basel problem? We can prove $sum_{kge 1}k^{-2}=frac{pi^2}{6}$ by using the fact that acute $x$ satisfy $cot^2xle x^{-2}lecsc^2 x=cot^2 x$, which we sum over $xin{frac{kpi}{2m+1}|1le kle m}$. (The sum of the squared cotangents can be obtained from a polynomial's coefficients.) So once again, it leads back to trigonometry, hence circles.



          Similarly, every appearance of $e$, no matter how crazy-looking it is, traces to either of its equivalent definitions (1) $e:=lim_{ntoinfty}(1+frac{1}{n})^n$ or (2) $frac{d}{dx}e^x=e^x,,e>0$ . (1) implies $(1+frac{x}{n})^napprox e^x$ for $xll n$, from which we can deduce the central limit theorem using characteristic functions. But this proof also uses $e^{ix}=cos x+isin x$, which can be proven by combining (2) with a proof that $cos x,,sin x$ satisfy $y''=-y$.



          Why does $pi$ keep coming up? Because multivariable symmetries frequently concern tracing over the surface of a circle, sphere or hypersphere, which traces back to circles. WHy does $e$ keep coming up? Because so many problems hinge on rates of change, which automatically include exponential functions if the differential equations involved take a certain form.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Dec 11 '18 at 6:54









          J.G.

          23.1k22137




          23.1k22137























              1














              I would recommend you read the article on wikipedia about the definition of $pi$. It is suggested to start from the cosine function, which can be defined as a series or a differential equation. The reason is that usually in calculus you learn series and derivatives before integral. If you have this notions, then one can derive the circumference of the circle by integration, so $pi$ as defined in antiquity is a consequence of a calculation performed 3000 years later. Similar with $e$, if you start with either the Taylor series representation or the basic definition that $frac{de^x}{dx}=e^x$, you can then derive all properties you described in your question.






              share|cite|improve this answer


























                1














                I would recommend you read the article on wikipedia about the definition of $pi$. It is suggested to start from the cosine function, which can be defined as a series or a differential equation. The reason is that usually in calculus you learn series and derivatives before integral. If you have this notions, then one can derive the circumference of the circle by integration, so $pi$ as defined in antiquity is a consequence of a calculation performed 3000 years later. Similar with $e$, if you start with either the Taylor series representation or the basic definition that $frac{de^x}{dx}=e^x$, you can then derive all properties you described in your question.






                share|cite|improve this answer
























                  1












                  1








                  1






                  I would recommend you read the article on wikipedia about the definition of $pi$. It is suggested to start from the cosine function, which can be defined as a series or a differential equation. The reason is that usually in calculus you learn series and derivatives before integral. If you have this notions, then one can derive the circumference of the circle by integration, so $pi$ as defined in antiquity is a consequence of a calculation performed 3000 years later. Similar with $e$, if you start with either the Taylor series representation or the basic definition that $frac{de^x}{dx}=e^x$, you can then derive all properties you described in your question.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  I would recommend you read the article on wikipedia about the definition of $pi$. It is suggested to start from the cosine function, which can be defined as a series or a differential equation. The reason is that usually in calculus you learn series and derivatives before integral. If you have this notions, then one can derive the circumference of the circle by integration, so $pi$ as defined in antiquity is a consequence of a calculation performed 3000 years later. Similar with $e$, if you start with either the Taylor series representation or the basic definition that $frac{de^x}{dx}=e^x$, you can then derive all properties you described in your question.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Dec 11 '18 at 6:52









                  Andrei

                  11.3k21026




                  11.3k21026















                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Bressuire

                      Cabo Verde

                      Gyllenstierna