Imaginary Numbers

page: 8
6
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev

Instead of some liner relationship defining both side of the square as either both positive or both negative. We have a situation where one side of the square is negative and the other positive for some reason.

If the inputs have a half charge it could also account for √-1 and its subsequent stepping through imaginary and real values as the power rises.


Yea this is one way I see it. The concept of positive real numbers. The concept of negative real numbers. It seems the concept of squaring a number was defined. And then why not establish the concept of squaring a negative number. And then the concept of square rooting a number was defined and discovered. And then they ran into trouble with the rules when they tried to find the square root of a negative number. The only way to arrive at a solution would be to break the concept and rules of squaring a number, which depend on multiplying a number by itself. So it seems imaginary numbers were a way to change the rules of squaring meaning multiplying a real positive number or real negative number by its real positive or negative self. To defining a 'math trick' as allowing one to ignore the rule of squares dealing with their identical number, in order to square numbers of opposite signs (- or +) to get the otherwise impossible (according to established rules and definitions) negative square root.




posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 



Saw this video in another thread, and remembered your thread.



Go to around 1:08:00



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by EA006
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Just looks like a more complicated math to me (multilayered). They can't be imaginary numbers if they have real world uses.
Maths therefore is incomplete.


No. You're misunderstanding the language. Mathematically the group and field structures are what they are.

One notion of "real" vs "imaginary" in common use to denote presence or absence of physicality or honesty/, as in, "commonly observed by multiple sane observers in the same way" vs "observed only by individual observers in their imagination in inconsistent ways".

That the numbers mentioned in mathematics are 'real' and 'imaginary' is a mere linguistic affectation and should not be taken to be meaningful or predictive.

They could have been called fnord-numbers, and co-fnord numbers which together form the field of fnordix numbers.
edit on 16-7-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Absolutely

It's simply a language innovation that allows graphical concepts to be accurately and effectively described & manipulated in plain text (no graph paper, rulers, compasses, protractors etc required). We'd have had far less confusion if a name other than 'imaginary' had been applied but I guess it is the logical opposite of 'real' so I can't condemn the innovation itself.
edit on 16/7/2013 by Pilgrum because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


I know this is off topic, but I also know you like math and numbers and cool things, and I didnt know where else to post this...but it certainly is cool and intriguing.






new topics
 
6
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join