/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12802546
I don't understand why should a triangle in the Minkowski plane BTFO me

A non-euclidean shape drawn as if it's euclidean. Snore. You're going to need stronger bait. That's not even a real right angle, faggot.

>>12802546
>nigger doesn't know how to take a dot product
kek

>>12802546
x=0.999....
10x=9.9999...
10x-x=9.99.... - x
9x=9
x=1
0.999..... = 1

>>12802578
x=0.99
10x=9.99
10x-x=9.99 - x
9x=9
x=1
0.99 = 1

>>12802584
based

>>12802567
it's a triangle in [math]\mathbb{R}^2[/math] where the Euclidean dot product is replaced by the form [math]\langle u,v \rangle = u_1v_1 - u_2v_2[/math]. there's nothing wrong with the picture.

>>12802595
>Euclidean dot product is replaced
So it's not Euclidean.

Square root of 0 may be not 0, but some number which gets squared to 0.

OP completely BTFO in his own thread. Typical.

>>12802602
of course not, it's a pseudo-Euclidean triangle

>>12802681
So? A square is also a pseudo-Euclidean triangle. Why should anyone care about random analogies you make, as if the shared properties somehow negate the unshared properties. That's art, not math.

>>12802546
hey op what's the sine of the top angle?
what about the bottom one? huh? HUH?

Yeah tough so OP. Shitposting attempt canceled.
[math]\bf{\thread}[/math]

>>12802997
no, a square is most definitely not a psedo-Euclidean triangle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Euclidean_space
>Why should anyone care about random analogies you make, as if the shared properties somehow negate the unshared properties.
I have no idea what you mean by this. the analogies are not random.

>>12803047
What's your point? Pseudo-x is x? Pseudoscience confirmed for real science.

>hey op what's the sine of the top angle?
>what about the bottom one? huh? HUH?

>Yeah tough so OP. Shitposting attempt canceled.
>[math]\bf{\thread}[/math]

>>12802546
>Trying to put i into a real world application.

>>12803057
pic is fine

>>12803047
Of course it's a random analogy. No different than me calling a Euclidean square a Euclidean pseudo-triangle, which is what I meant to write. Who cares? What are you trying to say with your imperfect analogy?

>>12803086
>Who cares?
all physicists care. the geometry where a vector's length can square to a negative number is the basis for theory of relativity. Pythagorean theorem holds here as well, and it takes one glance at the proof to understand that the analogy is anything but random.

>>12803125
Which, again, has nothing to do with the fact that pseudo-Euclidean space is a generalization of Euclidean space, not the other way around. Someone says "that's not a triangle" and your reply is "yes, it's a generalized triangle." I'll ask again, do you have a point?

>>12803174
yes, the point is here >>12803071

The hypotenuse is smaller than one of the other sides of the triangle so it's not a real triangle also I like to dress up in women's clothing and deepthroat bananas

>>12803187
>it's not a real triangle
Of course not, one side is imaginary

>>12802584
>10*0.99=9.99
Hmmmmm

>>12802546
This guy gets it.

I stopped caring about math when I was introduced to the concept of imaginary numbers. What a crock of shit. If your equation can only be solved by inventing numbers that can't exist, like some kind of math deity, then you are fucking wrong and the math is flawed. Same for algebra solutions that basically say "the correct answer is whatever the correct answer is". Thats what the math said transcribed to words but god forbid if i wrote in down in english instead of the ancient math runes the teacher word mark me wrong.

Math is logical and numbers never lie my ass. Math is just as flawed as any other human construct.

>>12802546
>the real length of the hypotenuse of an imaginary triangle is zero
I’d be more confused if math told me the imaginary triangle was real

>>12803271
>t. Pythagoras

>>12803271
>If your equation can only be solved by inventing numbers that can't exist, like some kind of math deity, then you are fucking wrong and the math is flawed.
not only that but you invent new special exceptions and rules that state
>my ultimate based&redpilled theorem applies everywhere... except for the case where it's an imaginary number. Then that's bad and you should cease applying it asap.
Which in that case is the meme imaginary triangle. It's a simple statement, it just adds an i-length side to a unit triangle. Everyone above age 14 is aware that you can't do that, yet everyone is also aware that math isn't supposed to be this easily breakable and to have to rely on some exceptions to prevent you from doing this. A whole set of numbers for what exactly? You can't even apply them anywhere. And the other perfect example is the division by zero which breaks math before you even begin to move the number line.

From this point onward you can attack the entire ZFC and the claim that there can exist infinite sets, a claim that is reflexively taken as the ultimate Truth in modern society, which is false because the only ones geometrically applicable to our reality are the natural numbers. Everything else is judeo-rationalist cope, an attempt to pull you into the platonic realm of infinite possibilities that does not respond to the reality that is limited from these infinities.

>>12803183
Eh. Not really. The math is fine, but the pic is intentionally sets up two legs in the Gaussian plane and then warps in a hypotenuse from the Cartesian plane. It's supposed to be wrong.

>>12803344
>division by zero which breaks math
How so?

>>12802584

>>12802584

>>12803271
Based.

>>12803344
There are integer polynomials whose roots cannot be found in the integers. In order to solve these equations you have to make up these new numbers called rational numbers. Similarly, there are equations made from rational numbers that cannot be solved with the rational numbers so we invent another fictional new type of number called irrational numbers (wtf!). The irrational numbers combined with the rationals forms the set of real numbers. The imaginary numbers also are created to solve real cooefficient polynomials not solvable with real numbers numbers. All imaginary polynomials have roots in the set of imaginary numbers (which reals are a subset of). By your logic of imaginary numbers being made up, so are every other number other than the counting numbers (ie natural numbers). Fractions don't exist and are fictional nonsense.

>>12803271
See
>>12803464
Its not just imaginary numbers that are made up, but also every other number outside the natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...)
Fractions and negative numbers are nonsense and don't exist. How can you have a negative or fractional number of something? It's literal nonsense

>>12802595
The norm of i is 1.

>>12803493
Op's picture is a triangle where the norm of one side is i

>>12803493
yeah, but that's not relevant

>>12803482
Natural numbers don't exist either, they are concepts. You can picture me one of something, but "one"? What is a one? Same with anything else.
Also, under your own criteria, would the 0 be considered real?

>>12803271
Before non-integer multiplication the concept of 5.4 times 7.8 didn't exist. Suddenly, when multiplication is generalized to non-integers this becomes feasible. No difference with "imaginary numbers", you're just bitching about the name.

>>12804203
Not true, that’s just 54 times 78 in a different integer radix. You may have a point, but you need to try harder.

>>12803271
QM is real and i exists in QM so imaginary numbers exist afterall

>>12804352
You can do qm without imaginary numbers

>>12804364
You mean with vector analogs that totally aren't the same thing as imaginary numbers?

>>12802546
>bwaaaah why does math defined in the upper right half of the real plane not import to the imaginary plane without careful consideration?
>math is fake and gay!
These shitpost threads get old.
Same goes for undergrads who talk about how imaginary numbers are fake even though there’s an intuitive, canonical, concrete way to identify the complex numbers: [math] \mathbb{C} \cong \mathbb{R}[x] / (x^2 + 1) [/math].

>>12804399
Yea, imaginary numbers don't even have to be a thing. It's just a convenient way of embodying how they multiply.

>>12804399
> concrete
> ≈
back to /lit/, faggot, your phd in applied iambs has no currency here

>>12804399
you realize all the shitposters don't understand what you just wrote, and will continue ad nauseum anyway, in spite of the fact you just BTFO'd them right

>>12804410
>shitposters don't understand this 3rd grade math.
I really am getting too old for /sci/.

>>12804410
I think the OP image is very beautiful, showing that making imagination normal to reality creates makes the ends of the imagination appear infinitely near.

>>12802546
it doesn't work like that because i is in other dimension

>>12804428
No, you're just retarded. Yes, you can express C as a quotient ring. Yes, you can express C as vectors. None of that changes the fact that the OP image is nonsense.

>>12804503
>None of that changes the fact that the OP image is nonsense.
it's not though

>>12805504
Pythagorean theorem applies to lengths not coordinates on the Cartesian plane