/sci/ - Science & Math

i think the idea is consistent and useful in a variety of science and engineering applications.

Mathematically yes, realistically NO. Next question
>inb4 muh rotations
>actually it's the circle things that rotate
Mid wits fuck off

Not really. All the problems are solved with real functions and using complex numbers is a cheap trick

>>16015225
>do you think imaginary numbers exist?
They exist within the complex plane, yes.
What you are asking is not much different than asking if numbers exist.

YOU CANT HAVE SLOPE AT A POINT. YOU CANT HAVE SLOPE AT A POINT YOU CANT HAVE SLOEP AT A POINT YOU CANT HAVE SLOOGOERP AT A POINT YOU CANT

>>16015225
Since numbers only exist on paper anyway, why the fuck not

>>16015306
what are you on about

>>16015270
What does it mean for a number to exist "realistically?"

>>16015422
When you can actually really have that number of objects or use it as the basis of a counting system such as with natural number rather than immeasurable nonsense like irrational numbers where you can't have pi apples or count from 1 to 10 in pi steps.

>>16015225
Your very question demonstrates that you are retarded and ignorant AF.
>>16015287
>>16015270
>>16015481
Fucking retards, I don't want to see you anywhere near STEM.

>>16015488
Ok then feel free to count from 1 to 10 using pi steps in a base-pi system or explain how you can have i apples if you are so good at STEMMING.

>>16015495
I can count from 1 to 10 in base 2i. Does that count?

>>16015225
Of course not.
Neither do irrationals, negatives, or infinities. Or zero.
Now listen up, I have been speaking with GOD and GOD tells me that any mathematical construct that can not be represented by an apple, or part of an apple, is an ABOMINATION.
Furthermore GOD has told me that it is the SACRED DUTY of all TRUE BELIEVERS to wage a HOLY WAR of MATHEMATICAL RIGHTEOUSNESS against all those who say otherwise.
I say we begin with some book burning and desecration. Then we can move on with the wholesale slaughter of HERETICS later on.

>>16015517
Except you didn't because you can't since you can't use i (or any factor or multiple of i) steps to count from 1 to 10.

>>16015225
The very fact that you even ask the question you did utterly and completely reveals the fact that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. You have no idea what imaginary numbers are coma, I would even wager gas that you lack basic arithmetic skills and that this thread is just a shitpost.
Whether it be a shit post or you're an uneducated idiot, the result is the same: kill yourself in real life.

>>16015537
The very fact that your answer is a retarded rage post reveals you are a retarded rageoholic.

>>16015481
>ONLY COUNTING ON MY FINGERS IS REALLY REAL
i want you to kys, dear

>>16015598
Better than you who can only count on being retarded.

>>16015225
If you are talking about quantum physics and imaginary eigenvalues or properties? Then no.
I read that this would imply that there is some hidden fine structure behind reality so multiple things that appear to be the same now actually aren't.

>>16015527
Just add every step 1 + 0i, you moron.

>>16015527
EZ AF in C++ 23:
https://godbolt.org/z/drer5hGY8

>>16015225
Lmao retard thread

>>16015657
If you can do it, do it, don't shift the burden to others to do what you clearly can't when you are the one claiming it can be done.

>>16015663
If its so easy then why couldn't you do it?

>>16015667
>>16015671
Fucking jews.

>>16015673
Only a jew can be that stupid.

>>16015673
>>16015674
I accept your concession and proven inability to coherently count to 10 in an irrational or imaginary base.

>>16015225
of course they do, descartes retarded nomenclature will never impact their existence or lack there of, nor will your or anyone else's boneheadedness, also this thread again?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUzklzVXJwo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtIsYbYdzCI

>>16015522
if you are really a christian and not a retard larping to make fun of a certain subset of christians, then there a thousand things right now that you should be doing for your lord that ain't some dumb math pseudophilosophy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5c-d1pNnvs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-lAekcXRpw

>>16015225
it's just a mathematical way to describe 2 dimensions purely numerically

>>16015684
0, 1, 2, 3, 10300, 10301, 10302, 10303, 10200, 10201, 10202
there you go, homo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quater-imaginary_base

>>16015684
10 in base sqrt(2) is just 1000100

>>16015717
That is 11 steps, not i steps, and you didn't even get to 10 in the base i.

>>16015724
irrelevant now try to actually count from 1 to 10 in base sqrt2

>>16015724
oh yeah, forgot about those, huh, im >>16015717 not the dumbfuck you responded to

>>16015731
>That is 11 steps
>he doesn't start counting from 0
i accept your concession
>>16015732
easy peasy, starting again from 0:
0, 1, 100, 101, 10000, 10001, 10100, 10101, 1000000, 1000001, 1000100

yes

terrible thread op

>>16015481
Why is your standard for whether a number is "realistic" whether you can use it as a base for a counting system? Are you literally retarded?

>>16015753
Donkey mind. Capable of donkey thought and theory

>>16015754
i also get the feeling that he is retarded, but he might just be trolling, because this turns out to be the apex of what he is capable of, leading to him seeking to act like a retard on a underwater animal-shaped basket weaving forum

>>16015225
I'm at least strongly convinced that they do. Defining the complex numbers given the reals is easy. Defining the reals given the rationals is hard. If you reject the complex numbers, you'd have to reject the real numbers.

>>16015488
>>16015537
I'd wager that you get offended by flat earthers and that you're not emotionally disinterested enough to do exact sciences ethically. Goofy-ass generation.

>>16015825
>Defining the reals given the rationals is hard
how do you feel about the eudoxus construction of the reals from the integers?
https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0405454

>>16015416
Math is what we define it to be

>>16015225
They are needed to describe physical phenomena (quantum mechanics) so yes, they "exist" in the sense that they are needed to make sense of the world.

>>16015837
I'd say that's harder than Dedekind cuts. It's purely algebraic to get Q from Z and C from R, so why not do it?

>>16015858
>I'd say that's harder than Dedekind cuts.
fair
>It's purely algebraic to get Q from Z and C from R, so why not do it?
i never said not to, i merely inquired your thoughts about the eudoxus construction

>>16015870
I wonder if getting R directly from Z might be relevant to Fourier analysis.

>>16015877
...to Poisson summation in particular

>>16015270
it's the high-wit way to view them as rotations (plus extensions), cope&seethe brainlet.

>>16015837
Cauchy reals are due to Cantor
Dedekind reals are essentially a rehash of what Eudoxus said millennia ago
So of course Eudoxus reals are from some 20th-century guy

Mapping natural* numbers to complex numbers
Natural* number in binary, each letter is a bit:
...hgfedcba
real part: integer.fraction
...ea.cg...
imaginary part: integer.fraction
...fb.dh...
Simple as that.

this is truly an incredibly amusing thread
>>16015225
imaginary numbers aren't real.

A 14-dimensional complex simple Lie algebra with the G2 root system exists because of Serre relations, but that's not good enough for curious people.

>>16015225
does anti matter exist?

>>16016024
nah

>>16016766
yeah, a simple banana is capable of producing it

In the same way real numbers exist

>>16015894
Prove it, nigga

>>16016836
not him and i ain't doing it cause im lazy, but what are your standards for acceptable proof?

>>16015731
Base i is a degenerate base like unary.
I haven't bothered studying cyclotomic bases very deeply, but I'm pretty confident none of them can count the integers because adding two complex conjugate powers of the root never gives an integer never than 1 (except the roots of [math]\Phi_6(x) = x^2 - x + 1[/math], which obviously sum to 1, since that's the coefficient of -x).
Anyone know off the top of their head for what n [math]|[x^{\phi(n) - 1}]\Phi_n(x)| > 1[/math] is true?

>>16016894
>never than 1
other than 1

>>16016894
sqrt 5 < n < cube root 5

>>16015481
That anon is correct and all you ideological kiddos will one day realize that math is just a bundle of man made concepts that are sometimes useful. It has nothing to do with our actual reality or with actual (not logical you fucking ideologic chuds) truth.

>>16015225
I think they are not.
They are a made up concept that comes in handy for certain computations, mathematical theorems and engineering/scientific models.

>>16015522
I hear you Brother. I look forward to the day when we can round up all those God cursed infinity loving sodomites and burn them at the stake.

>>16015743
I did count the 0 in your attempt, you just failed to follow direction completely, you didn't start at 1, you didn't end at 10, you didn't use base-i, and it didn't take you i steps to get from 1 to 10.

>>16015754
>>16015759
If a number system isn't even useful enough to count or describe real world objects, it doesn't have any real world applications and isn't very realistic.

>>16016894
>never gives an integer never than 1
Every actual realistic useable base,x, starts at 0, goes to 1, then rolls over to 10 on the xth step, meaning there are x numbers starting at 1 and going to 10.

>>16016977
>actual realistic useable
Irrelevant. See >>16015717 and >>16015743

>>16016914
Retard

>>16016966
>isn't even useful enough to count or describe real world objects
is QM real to you? I'm asking because I have the feeling you're very stupid.

>>16016966
Maybe the number does describe a real world object or concept, and it just isn't specifically related to counting. You understand there are other things you'd do with a number system other than count beans right? For example, something could be useful for measuring something, like an angle of counter clockwise rotation maybe? Or a phase offset in a periodic signal? You not being educated enough to have encountered where complex numbers are used (absolutely everywhere when you are talking about ODE solutions, or periodic waveforms like power signals) doesn't mean they don't have realistic uses.

>>16017070
See the replies to those posts since you clearly don't understand the task.

You didn't follow directions at all and don't seem to understand how a base works or how to count in a non decimal base since you clearly aren't using base i to count, but seem to be posting a bunch of random decimals that represent random conversions from i and never once get from 1 to 10 in i steps because you can't since that is not possible and it isn't possible with pi either since i is imaginary and pi is irrational, so you can't really get from 1 to 10 in a logical amount of steps using an imaginary or irrational base.

For example to count from 1 to 10 in base-16 you would count 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, 10, noting that because it is base-16 there are 16 steps from 1 to 10 just like in base-10 there are 10 steps from 1 to 10 and in base-8 there are 8 steps from 1 to 10 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10), so in base i, there should be i steps from 1 to 10, so if it is a valid base prove it by counting from 1 to 10 in base-i using i steps from 1 to 10.

>>16017096
You are a tiny mind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio_base

>>16017099
You are retarded and constantly shifting the goalpost since not only can you not count from 1 to 10 in base-i or base-pi in i or pi steps respectively, but you also are just introducing the fact that you can't count from 1 to 10 in base-phi with phi steps either.

>>16017093
I don't know exactly what you mean by real in this context, you can plug in real numbers to QM theories and estimate values, but QM is not a 1:1 completely 100% accurate representation of reality, its just a map of the territory.

>>16017115
Try learning beyond what they teach you in kindergarten, then come groveling back to me for enlightenment

>>16016849
The proof has to follow directly through the idea of roots same as the relationship of rationals with ratios.

no they made them up it's bullshit plato cry pythagoras cry euclid cry God (inventor of math) cry

fortunately u don't need divinely illuminated demonstratively true math to do practical work so the electricians are fine

>>16017094
>something could be useful for measuring something,
How could it be useful for measuring when it can't even keep count of how much of something there is?

>like an angle of counter clockwise rotation maybe?
That is specifically related to counting though, it is just a closed circular system of counting like how a clock counts time in a day that resets every 360 degrees (or every 12 or 24 hours depending on the system) instead of being open ended and rolling over to a new digit every time the radix maxes out.

You can count in multiples of i, though, what you are saying is irrelevant to the fact that base-i is gibberish since it can't even be used as a number system and its impossible to count in some ratio of increments to an i length base.

>>16017121
They don't teach that in kindergarden which is why you are so confused and can't follow the directions.
Come back when you can actually figure out the task and realize it is impossible to count using an irrational base which is why you keep trying to change the subject instead of proving you can not count from 1 to 10 in an imaginary or irrational base because they are not realistic number systems.

>>16017134
Since baby isn't capable of reading a Wikipedia article, I'll derive it from scratch
Don't think it'll do you much good for your smoothbrain self, though

φ^2 = φ + 1
=> 100 = 11
=> 200 = 111 = 1001

0
1
10.01
100.01
101.01
1000.1001
1010.0001
10000.0001
10001.0001
10010.0101
10100.0101

>>16015225
[math]
\displaystyle
a+ib \leftrightarrow
\begin{bmatrix}
a&-b \\
b&a
\end{bmatrix}

[/math]

>>16017157
You still included 11 steps instead of phi steps, still not actually using base-phi and using decimals instead, still didn't start at 1, still didn't end at 10, still didn't appear as if you read or understood >>16017096, so you are still too retarded to follow directions or understand what counting means in other bases besides decimal.

>>16017122
So complex numbers, being crucial to QM, are "useful to describe real objects", aren't they? What you call estimate values is about predicting real behavior. Nobody claimed that it's a 1:1 representation of reality, as is nothing else we can formulate.

>>16017181
They aren't crucial though, you could work around the need for imaginary numbers in any context, they are just the establish math semantic symbols, so they can get plugged into a variety of mechanical formulas, but could be just as easily replaced as dotted lines in a border on a map being replaced by colored lines.

>>16017193
Yeah, and everytime you use natural numbers you could just write "this many things:" and draw dots or blocks. They are no more real than any other notation. Either all "semantic symbols" are real or none.

>>16017202
Yes, that is nearing binary and much more realistic than trying to count in an irrational base since you could still actually denote how many things there are with roman numeral style counting and irrational/imaginary bases can't even be used to count from 1 to 10.

>>16017178
>still didn't end at 10
10=base you metaphysical baboon, 10 in base phi=phi. 10 in base root 2=root 2, 10 in base quater imaginary=2i

>>16017212
>bases can't even be used to count from 1 to 10.
are you speaking of 10 as in the base or as in, and im going to use tally marks here, ||||||||||?, because the latter is what has been given to you several times, you willfully obtuse fuck

>>16017212
Totally irrelevant to my point. You have made up a completely arbitrary standard of "realism" for numbers as to how well they can count le things. Yeah, natural numbers work well for counting discrete objects and other numbers work well for other things, solving equations or encoding rotations or linear maps generally; get help with your autistic OCD with muh counting.

>>16017246
>10=base you metaphysical baboon
Yes, I already said that every number system has a 10 and it equals the radix of the system.
>>16017096

>10 in base phi=phi.
>10 in base quater imaginary=2i
Yes, so count to 10 in base-phi with phi steps or count to 10 in quaterimainary with 2i steps, retard.
Oh wait, you can't because its not possible because base-phi and every other irrational and imaginary base is not realistic and can't even be used to count to 10 even though 10 is definitely part of the number system.

>>16015293
do numbers exist?

>>16017251
No, you are counting in base-10 from 0 to 10, then converting the results to another base system which isn't the task, the task is to count from 1 to 10 in an irrational or imaginary base similar to how I counted from 1 to 10 in a base-16 and base-8 system >>16017096.

>>16017253
>can't even be used to count to 10 even though 10 is definitely part of the number system.
0, 1, 10, wow, im wizord

>>16017255
ah, so where being a willfully obtuse subhuman to waste the time of everyone in the thread, good to know, may all the suffering you deserve get to you as it should, you misuse of air

>>16017252
>other numbers work well for other things
Irrational and Imaginary base number systems aren't used for anything and its not that they don't work well for counting, its that you can't count with them at all.

>solving equations or encoding rotations or linear maps generally
Irrational and imaginary bases aren't used for that, degrees in base-10 with a circular rollover are used for that, irrational and imaginary bases aren't used for anything because they aren't realistic and aren't even useful enough to use for counting let alone any other numerical application.

>>16017256
That is a binary system with 2 steps from 1 to 10 which you were to retarded to count as directed and choose to start at 0 instead of 1 per the instructions.

>>16017257
The only person wasting time is you pretending that it is possible to count from 1 to 10 in an imaginary or irrational base when you clearly can't demonstrate it and only show that you are a retard who doesn't understand numerical bases and couldn't even follow basic directions if you did.

>>16017259
The question was about usefulness in, for example, QM, not as bases. Why are you diverting to bases, which no one gives a shit about? I meant it as a joke but you do really seem to have some autistic OCD around counting stuff.

>>16017276
>The question was about usefulness in, for example, QM, not as bases.
Who cares, you lied about that too and acted like i was super crucial to QM and couldn't easily be replaced or just left as sqrt(-1), then just had to concede that it is just a symbol and it is not actually crucial to QM.

If your number system is not even useful enough to count with, it doesn't have any realistic applications and you haven't done anything to show that it is necessarily crucial to QM or any other application.

>>16017168
Nice, literally a rotation and scaling matrix.

>>16017259
>>16017263
>>16017279

>>16017297

>>16017297
>I can't show anything crucial about it or back up its usefulness with a demonstration or evidence, so have a silly picture file instead.
I accept your concession.

>>16015522
Praise the Lord!
You speak the truth. Its reassuring to see there are others of the One True Finite Faith using this board.

>>16016916
even more retarded

>>16017393
You will never count from 1 to 10 in an irrational or imaginary base, cope and seethe harder.

If they don't, the fundamental theorem of algebra is wrong.

>>16017133
> how could it be useful for measuring when it can't even keep count of how much of something there is.

It's useful for measuring the same way that a ruler isn't simply a count of some "smallest" discrete size. Counting is a kind of measurement, but not all measurement is counting. I still don't understand why you think counting is the only way a kind of number could be useful. It's a very strange idea.

>>16017178
Yes, there are ten integers between one and ten. "Count to 10 in base n" is usually interpreted as "list the expansions of the first ten integers".
Just because you can't count to "10" doesn't mean you can't count to ten.

>>16017168

>>16015225
Does any abstraction exist outside of the mind that conceived it? Tree fall, forest, etc.

>>16017129
Cope, seethe and dilate.
Cauchy alone is greater all those greek shits summed up

>>16015225
>imaginary
it was named that as a joke

>>16015225
Think about it this way: let's say you've got a 2-dimensional real vector space, spanned by two vectors 1 and i (for now, these are just names). Now suppose you want to define multiplication of vectors on this vector space in whatever
kind of way you want, as long as it is associative and the operations of adding and multiplying vectors "work together nicely", i.e. our vector space becomes a ring. Finally, you say that you want every nonzero vector to be invertible. Then your vector space is exactly complex numbers, same multiplication and everything (technically, i^2 is some negative real, not necessarily -1, but we can always rescale it).

Oddly enough, I think the motivation of complex numbers is much clearer this way: if you want some abstract generalization of the reals that is "nice", it will always include some abstract element whose square is equal to -1 and will work basically like complex numbers.

>>16017905
Also, if you know a little bit of linear algebra, you should be able to figure out why you can't define a real division algebra (what I did in the previous post) of odd dimension. In fact, you can only do it in dimensions 1,2 and 4 due to a theorem of Frobenius.

>>16017403
j1, j2, j3, j4, j5, j6, j7, j8, j9, j10
there i did it! seethe more moron. holy shit imagine being filtered this hard by fucking sqrt -1. no seriously actually imagine if someone was actually this retarded. who would tie their shoes for them? who cooks for you people? do they get paid or are they unpaid janitors for your soiled XXXL adult diapers?

>>16015225
numbers doesn't exists

>>16017962
This.
Numbers are a way from many to represent the physical world.

>>16015225
Before Imaginary numbers : Numbers were direct representation of the physical world.
After Imaginary numbers : 1st step proving that numbers are not physical entities.

>But muh Dirac's equation with "i" in it ?
LEL AT QUATUM MECHANICS !

>>16018038

Brothers and Sisters of the ONE TRUE FINITE FAITH, let us pray.

"Oh mighty GOD, give us strength to undertake thy will. Let us throw all those who believe in imaginary numbers, negative numbers, infinities, and the rest of the bullshit, upon a raging fire of HOLY RIGHTEOUSNESS. So that the sacred flames will cleanse their retarded souls of their mathematical sins"

Amen.

>>16017939
No, that is not an irrational or imaginary number of steps, it is 10 steps, you just used decimals to count js, if you were using an imaginary radix for an imaginary number system, there would sqrt(-1) steps from j1 to j10, you are the one that clearly doesn't understand the concept.

>>16017452
>It's useful for measuring the same way that a ruler isn't simply a count of some "smallest" discrete size.
A ruler is segmented according to logical rational steps and a relationship between adjacent numbers that makes actual physical sense and can actually usefully be used to measure things. An irrational or imaginary base can do none of those and there is no rule for measuring in those bases because you can't even count from 1 to 10.

I still don't see why you insist they are useful, but can't identify a single useful thing about using an imaginary or irrational base and can't count despite anons continually insisting it is possible and failing spectacular when it comes time to actually prove it.

Just give one example of the mathematical usefulness of a number system that can't even be used for counting besides obfuscation and using the random noise from creating nonsensical ratios of irrational numbers for arbitrary encryption conversion purposes.

>>16017473
>Just because you can't count to "10" doesn't mean you can't count to ten.
It means you can't count to 10 in that base and you can't use that base for measurement or valuation, you can only count to 10 and measure values in valid bases then estimate divisions between irrational values to "convert" to a nonsensical irrational base.

>>16015488
Söylent little scifi enjoyer found

First sip of complex numbers makes you an atheist
The last sip of complex numbers makes you realise this could have done with real numbers

>>16015225
https://youtu.be/XoTeTHSQSMU?si=HP9EfdgZRSvJwdlk

i is a 2×2 matrix

>>16015225
Do I think rotations exist?
Yes, I do, actually.

>>16017870
>Cauchy alone is greater all those greek shits summed up
don't blame the dead for the retardation of the living

>>16018710
Can you count to one trillion? I bet you can't. Go ahead and try it bro, and post proof

>>16018861

>>16018709
Continuous metrics of distance are used absolutely everywhere and are far more useful than simple counting measures. There's even a whole discipline of math focused on how we extend the notion of length to a more general kind of set because it's just so much more useful than counting.

Using measures of length can do so much more than counting (and yes, it can do counting too in the same way that your ruler does counting by using the continuous span between the indices as a discrete length).

The imaginary number i corresponds to a measure of rotation of 90° counter clockwise. You absolutely can count rotates in groups of i (and in fact multiples of i and i/2 are used all over the damn place in systems that deal with periodic signals, think your cell phone or wifi system). Multiplication by some constant scaling of i is the primary way of measuring phase offset and delay between two continuous signals and is used extensively in managing power load for power generation and making sure that losses are minimized by impedance matching (designing the system based on the measure of expected phase delay, which will be a complex number).

This really seems like a circumstance where your own ignorance to how the mathematics are used, and autistic insistence that it can't be useful because you can't conceptualize it being used in one specific way, is not helping you any. When you see a convention that is used all over the world that you don't understand, you should approach it with humility and ask the question "do they know something I don't?"

>>16018715
It could have, but it's a worse way to do it. You could handle the solution of a transformation of a real amplitude continuous signal by a convolution integral without involving the complex Laplace transform. That's almost always a much worse way to do things and in general will not have analytic solutions to the convolution integral despite analytic solutions existing if you use complex analysis as an in between before going back to the real signal at the end.

>>16018861
Yes I will count by trillions.
0 trillion, 1 trillion.
Easy.

>>16018867
>Continuous metrics of distance
Imaginary and irrational bases can not provide such a thing.

>>16018873
1) the unit i is literally a basis vector in C as well as SE2.

2) Why do they need to? You can segment the reals into whatever groups you want to. If you wanted to count in groups of sqrt{13-π} you absolutely could. It would be dumb but you could. Whether something serves as a base for whatever counting system you impose is not indicative of it being more or less useful than the numbers you make by combinations of your basis vectors.

>>16018883
>1) the unit i is literally a basis vector in C as well as SE2.
Programming languages aren't used to measure distance, they aren't related to measurement at all, they are ways to virtually represent thing and move around digital data.

2) You just implied they could, you need them to for your claim that they are useful to have merit, but that claims doesn't have merit because irrational and imaginary bases don't have any use in counting or in measurement.

>If you wanted to count in groups of sqrt{13-π}
Then feel free to show me how to count in base-sqrt{13-π} by converting to that base and count from 1 to 10 (not counting from 1 to 10 in decimal then converting to another base, but actually count in the base you claim can be used for counting.

>>16018896
> Programming languages aren't used to measure distance.

Alright, you enjoy your trolling. I've explained multiple times >>16018883
and >>16018867 but you insist on not listening to what anyone else is saying. Engaging further is a fool's errand. If you actually want an answer to your question about numbers, you should take literally the opposite approach you have. Assuming everyone else is wrong and then ignoring everything they present to you to counter your own perspective will not teach you anything.

>>16018912
I don't need to listen to your bullshit when it is clear you can't actually use irrational or imaginary bases to count, let alone measure.

>>16018921
Okay. It's everyone else that's wrong, surely. You've cracked the code champ. All of mathematics is a lie because we don't actually need irrational numbers or complex numbers because you can't intuitively understand how you'd count your 10 figures using them. When are you going to publish this incredible finding so others can learn from your brilliance?

>>16018925
>. It's everyone else that's wrong, surely.
You clearly are since you choose to spout a bunch of bullshit and make personal attacks instead of just showing the count or taking a picture of a rule with irrational or imaginary units.

Upon JUDGEMENT DAY you GOD CURSED infinity loving SODOMITES will all burn in the discrete flames of finite DAMNATION!

Amen

>>16018930
This is the general form of a numeral base system. There's absolutely no reason you couldn't form just about any number you'd like using any real b you'd like to form your base for your counting system (and if you segment into real and complex components, that b could be complex as well). The alphabet a chosen to weight those b's can also be somewhat arbitrary (though at some point it becomes more cumbersome on a linguistic level).

I don't need to take a picture of a ruler with imaginary units. I've literally already explained to you how imaginary units are used to measure the phase difference between signals in real systems that are used every single day to make your communications possible. You ignored that answer because you didn't like it for some reason. That doesn't mean I didn't give it to you.

>>16018871
I could use exp(-ax)cos(bx+c) as kernel

It would reveal everything but yes it would be more tidious task

>>16018872
if you count from 0 to 1 in base 1-trillion, you have to write out one trillion steps, that was your own demand on a "useful" base. So, still waiting.

>>16015225
its a word for a set of numbers. so you asking if a certain invented set exists or a number?

>>16020068
a infinie ammount of things exists this is falsifyable so the only number existing is infinity, unless you prof a limited area of space.
so in order to falsify if a number exists or not you need to prof space.

or you asking for the existence of a set?
if a set exists or not depends on the classification of a specific intelligence.

exisence falsify space no space no existence.
but the falsification methode of any specific set has to be case profen for any specific intelligence.

>>16020081
so the correct answere is that we assume a infinite number of intelligences who cant undrstand a set and their for a specific number cant exist.
and a infinite number of intelligences who understand a set and wher a imaginary number can exist.

>>16020083
so the intelligence of a intelligence is, time times speed times size.

so in order to varify which infinity is larger and how much you need to know the sizes of space, the size of time and the size, and the specific speed any ai is running. and also the rate with which a new intelligence can form and grow.

>>16020087
time and space crush into an mathematical limes and is their for not ferifyable.


So the answere is, any thingable number can exist.
Any set can exist with sufficient classification intelligence.

Friendly reminder.
If you believe in imaginary numbers you will burn in Hell. After being tortured and then burnt at the stake.

Amen.

bump

>>16015225
No numbers, except arguably zero, actually exist

Imaginary numbers are just as much real as the 2nd spatial dimension is real. They are isomorphic to matrices, but nobody posts questions asking whether a matrix is real or not, what gives?

>>16022390
ARE matrices real?

I can have two apples.
I can have five apples.
How can I have
[math]\begin{bmatrix}2 & 5 \\ 8 & 1 \end{bmatrix}[/math] apples?

>>16018936
>There's absolutely no reason you couldn't form just about any number you'd like using any real b you'd like to form your base for your counting system
Yet you have to rant about bullshit instead of just showing you can count to 10 in those bases since you can't and the closest you can come is making up a bunch of bullshit to distract from the fact that your silly "number system" can't even be used to count.

>I've literally already explained to you how imaginary units are used to measure the phase difference between signals in real systems
That has nothing to do with an imaginary base, you are not smart enough to even understand the question that is being asked of you, since its not possible to count from 1 to 10 in an imaginary or irrational base and you are too stupid to accept it or prove you can.

> You ignored that answer because you didn't like it for some reason.
Its not an answer, the imaginary units aren't necessary, you can leave it at sqrt(-1) and the math will all work out just the same.

>That doesn't mean I didn't give it to you.
You answered a completely different question because you can't actually answer the question that was asked and show you can count from 1 to 10 in an imaginary or irrational base.

>>16018977
No 0 to 1 is always 1 step.
A trillion number of steps is actually realistic, while an imaginary or irrational or fractional number of steps in a counting system is not possible.

>>16023003
> You can leave it as sqrt(-1)

That is the same thing as i my dude. They mean the same thing. There's nothing magical that happens when you use the symbol i to refer to sqrt(-1) (which you'd know if you actually stopped being a moron and spend time time reading through a basic complex functions book).

> You can't count from 1 to 10 in an imaginary or irrational base.

The quarter-imaginsry base does that and can be used to represent almost every complex number, including the reals 1-10. The phinary base numbers (the image in the post you're responding to) can represent any nonnegative real number including 1-10.

You just aren't actually engaging with what people are saying.

It also isn't a distraction to show you an example of a measurement using a complex number that doesn't involve counting directly. My purpose was to explain to you that your intuition about what makes a number useful (which seems to be only counting in your mind) is wrong.

>>16023010
Quater-imaginary base* oops.

>>16023010
>That is the same thing as i my dude. They mean the same thing.
Which is why you don't even need i.

>The quarter-imaginsry base does that
Then prove it, count from 1 to 10 in the quarter-imaginary base instead of just saying you can do it over and over while failing to actually do it over and over.

>including the reals 1-10.
I am not saying you can't convert decimals 1-10 to another base, since base 10 is actually useful and can be used for counting, I am saying you can't count from 1 to 10 in those bases and you can't, here is an example of how to count in other bases again since you clearly don't understand how counting works in other bases than decimal >>16017096.

>The phinary base numbers (the image in the post you're responding to) can represent any nonnegative real number including 1-10.
But you can't count in phinary from 1 to 10 or you would have done it already instead of mentioning random unrelated facts and trying to repeatedly change the goalposts to 1-10 in decimal.

>You just aren't actually engaging with what people are saying.
You aren't actually counting from 1 to 10 in an irrational or imaginary base, you are converting decimals to useless bases that aren't even functional enough to be used to count from 1 to 10 in their own base.

> to show you an example of a measurement using a complex number
>complex number
But not an imaginary base which is the actual topic that you keep trying to change to imaginary numbers instead of imaginary bases because you know you can't count from 1 to 10 in an imaginary or irrational or even fractional base.

>My purpose was to explain to you that your intuition about what makes a number useful
Its not that useful if you don't need it, it can't be used as a base of its own, and you can easily just replace it with other symbols (sqrt(-1) instead of i) without loses anything useful.

>>16023023
Quaret-Base 1-10. Decimal is on the left of the hyphen and 2i.base is on the right.
1 - 1
2 - 2
3 - 3
4 - 10300
5 - 10301
6 - 10302
7 - 10303
8 - 10200
9.- 10201
10 - 10202

There. I've counted from 1-10 in base 2i. I don't know why you insist this matters so much. You can do the same thing with phinary.

>>16023027
No, you have once again converted decimals 1-10 to a different base and completely failed to count from 1 to 10 in that base. see >>16017096 yet again to see how counting in another base works.

>>16023032
Hey moron, that thing you're calling a base is actually an alphabet. It doesn't matter what symbols use as your alphabet for your positional numeral system so long as you keep a consistent ordered structure.

>>16023033
If you want to call it an alphabet, then your quaret base should have 2i distinctive letters from 1 to 10 rather than 10 decimal letters since having 10 decimal letters in the number system would make it decimal.

Your number system isn't even well ordered enough for you to count from 1 to 10 using a 2i length alphabet.

>>16023035
Why would it need to have 2i distinctive letters? That's the structure decimal uses, but there's absolutely no need for that to be the case.

You can represent any numbered base system using any number of alphabet symbols. It's literally the reason you're able to write online, because we can encode Unicode into blocks of 2 letter alphabets.

>>16018038
Yeah, no, sorry. It's not just quantum.

>>16023038
>Why would it need to have 2i distinctive letters?
Because that is how positional number systems work such that a base-2i alphabet has a radix of 2i.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radix

>That's the structure decimal uses, but there's absolutely no need for that to be the case.
No it is the structure of every base, octal, hex, binary, etc, see >>16017096 and reread it over and over and over until you understand it and realize why it doesn't make sense to have an irrational, imaginary, or fractional number of steps from 1 to 10.

>we can encode Unicode into blocks of 2 letter alphabets.
The alphabet with 2 letters is called base-2 or binary because there are 2 steps from 1 to 10.

>>16023045
Hey, did you take a look at that Wikipedia page you've linked? There's an article called "non-standard positional number systems" and it talks about what happens when you use negatives, complex numbers and non-integers as your base.

I'd say you could learn something if you took a look at it, but evidently learning isn't on the menu any time soon for you.

>>16023045
Also, I understand, you're just a moron. I do information theory research and we use continuous alphabet encoding for analog sources all the time. These are systems which "count" source symbols by their proximity to real symbols in Rn.

Your whole conception of what a counting system is seems to be stuck in a first semester computer science course which you can't escape.

>>16023046
I accept your concession nonstandard bases can not be used for counting and do not entirely qualify as a number system.

>>16023048
I still don't see you using them to count because you have realized now that they can't do so because they do not entirely qualify as number systems.

>>16023053
>>16023049
Did you even read the Wikipedia page you linked? They count as number systems. I've explained to you how they function, I've given you examples. The page you linked to to try and counter my point literally has links to the non-standard base cases where your line of thinking doesn't work and whose applications are generally for solving specific problems (thus justifying their use).

You just don't understand how a number system works and are confusing the simple cases you saw in your first semester CS course for something fundamental about number systems in general.

>>16023057
>Did you even read the Wikipedia page you linked? They count as number systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_positional_numeral_systems
>do not entirely comply
No, you need to read it.

>I've explained to you how they function, I've given you examples
No you have repeatedly demonstrated that you only understand how counting works in decimal since you repeatedly count from 1 to 10 in decimal before converting to another base.

>The page you linked to to try and counter my point
No, it literally shows you can't use them to count and you literally failed to count in those bases over and over preferring instead to use an actually number system for your counting, then converting.

>You just don't understand how a number system works
Then why are you the one that can only seem to count in decimal and can't actually show how counting works in an imaginary or irrational base and why are you trying to use the fact that nonstandard systems aren't standard and don't comply with all the qualities of a positional number system?

>confusing the simple cases
No, I am observing your repeated failure to count in an imaginary or irrational bases, preferring to count in decimal then convert when that is not the task you were given at all since you were suppose to count from 1 to 10 in your nonstandard system, but you can't because it does not comply with the properties of a number system that allow for counting from 1 to 10.

>>16023064
Here's counting from 1 to 10 in base 2i and the equivalent in decimal. Base 2i is in the left, decimal on the right.

1 - 1
2 - 2
3 - 3
10 - 2i
11 - 2i+1
12 - 2i + 2
13 - 2i + 3
100 - -4
101 - -3
102 - -2
103 - -1
1000 - -8i
1001 - -8i + 1
1002 - -8i + 2
1003 - -8i + 3

There. I've counted from 1 to 10 in base 2i (and beyond). Are you happy now? Can you finally calm your autism down and stop throwing a tantrum over people using numbers you don't understand?

>>16023072
3 in base 2i is not equal to 3 in decimal, though, you are very wrong, there are not even 2i steps in your count and you didn't even get to 10 in 2i steps. You have no idea what you are talking about and have no idea how to use a 2i number system to count.

>>16023079
3 in 2i is the same thing as 3 in decimal. Literally go check it you overconfident retard.

>>16023083
>t. the one who thinks they are counting in base-2i but continually counting in decimal and convert to base-2i instead and can't actually count from 1 to 10 in 2i steps usin2ig base-.

>>16023088
2i isn't a counting number. That doesn't mean you can't count with them. You can count with any ordered sequence of numbers. Why is your brain so smooth that you need to think about every possible counting system in this limited way? If it is able to establish a 1-1 correspondence with the natural numbers, you can count with it. You can do this with 2i (or any possible positional system, ordered or not).

Counting is also not the only thing that makes a number "realistic" or "useful" or any of the other euphemisms you've been using to deflect from the fact that you can't understand what these numbers represent.

>>16023092
Standard positional system or not*

>>16023092
>2i isn't a counting number.
I accept your concession.
>That doesn't mean you can't count with them.
Then count from 1 to 10 in the base or quit claiming you can when you have observably failed over and over and over and just have to distract with words and other bullshit from the fact that you can't actually use base-2i to do the simple task of counting from 1 to 10 while continually claiming it can be used to do so and failing to show how to do so.

>>16023097
I have counted from 1 to 10.

Counting from 1 to 10 in base 2i is literally just 1, 2, 3, 10. That's it.

>>16023102
Except that is base-4.

>>16023104
No it's not, it's base 2i. 10 just means a different thing in base 2i than it does in base 4.

Again, you are confusing the notion of alphabet for ordered base. You can have an alphabet that is {a, b, c, d, e, f} with an exponential base π and you could use that to represent any possible positive real number.

>>16023107
Wrong, you definitely just counted to 10 in base-4 rather than base-2i because there were 4 steps from 1 to 10 instead of 2i steps from 1 to 10.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_numeral_system

>You can have an alphabet that is {a, b, c, d, e, f} with an exponential base π
Nope, you can have either 3 or 4 letters in the alphabet, but you can't have π since π relies on a fraction of a letter while you can only utilize whole letters for counting which is why you can't count from 1 to 10 in base-π either.

>>16023110
I can see that we are going to run around in circles forever. You're quite stubborn for someone who is so profoundly ignorant.

Why is it that you are okay with 10 representing the decimal 4 in base 4, and 10 representing the decimal 2 in binary, but have such a hard time with 10 representing the decimal 2i in base 2i?

>>16023111
>I can see that we are going to run around in circles forever.
Only until you admit you can't actually count from 1 to 10 in 2i steps because 2i isn't a realistic base give that it doesn't entirely comply with all the properties of a numerical system which you have basically already done by saying 2i is not a number that can be used for counting, but for some reason still insist that it can be used for counting while failing over and over to simply count from 1 to 10 in 2i steps.

>Why is it that you are okay with 10 representing the decimal 4 in base 4, and 10 representing the decimal 2 in binary
Because you can count to 10 in 4 steps and you can count to 10 in 2 steps and you can count to 10 in 8 steps or 10 steps or 16 steps, but you can not count to 10 in i steps or π steps or e steps or negative steps and you have proven it by repeatedly failing to do so and only managing to do it in 2 or 4 or 10 or 11 steps.

>>16023117
The statement "2i is not a counting number" means that "the number 2i does not belong to the set of numbers n = 1,2,3,..."

That doesn't mean you can't count with it. You can count with any sequence of numbers that you can establish a 1-1 correspondence with n= 1,2,3,... That's literally how coding theory functions, and how every bit of computing technology encodes information.

Alphabets and positional numerical systems are about encoding information. That's literally all they do. If you can encode a number (e.g.,.16 in decimal, or 25π) in a different numerical encoding scheme (10000 in base 2i for 16, for example) that means you can count in that encoding scheme. You are confusing the way we represent numbers, i.e. the notation and way we communicate the concept, with the concept itself.

>>16023121
>That doesn't mean you can't count with it.
The fact that you have repeatedly failed to count from 1 to 10 in 2i steps proves you can't actually with it.

>Alphabets and positional numerical systems are about encoding information
Yes and its impossible to code an imaginary or irrational number to a rational number of steps because those numbers are not rational and can not rationally be used as a counting mechanism.

>that means you can count in that encoding scheme
Except that you have shown over and over you can't count from 1 to 10 in 2i steps and base-2i can't actually function as a counting system since it does not actually conform to all the properties of a numerical system.

>You are confusing the way we represent numbers,
You are unable to count from 1 to 10 in 2i steps because 2i is not a functional base that can be used to make a coherent count. Try to distract with "concepts" all you want but you simply will never be able to demonstrate that 2i is useful as a base that can do something as simple as count from 1 to 10 in its own base.

>>16023123
Alright, so I guess you just need to either choose to continue living in delusion or learn some coding theory/information theory. There's nothing else to really do until you are willing to actually admit you don't understand how something functions and try to learn how it actually works.

What do you think all of those people who are producing and using non-standard numerical systems are missing that you understand? Quater-imaginary encoding of numbers is used in just about every 3d physics engine, as pretty much all of them use quaternions to handle rotation. What is it that the rest of them don't see that you do?

>>16023126
>continue living in delusion
>t. anon who doesn't know the difference between 4 and 2i

> until you are willing to actually admit you don't understand
I will admit I didn't understand it when you actually count from 1 to 10 in 2i steps, until then you are just blowing hot air while seething about being entirely unable to actually count from 1 to 10 in 2i steps and proving your silly useless nearly number system can even be used for counting.

I don't care about all the baseless claims of someone who repeated fails to back up their original claims and needs a glut of new claims to distract from their inability to back up their original claims.

Blow all the hot air you want seething and coping ad infinitum about your inability to back up your claims, but you will never count from 1 to 10 in base-2i using 2i steps, so there is no point making a bunch of further claims until you can back up your original claims that you can count from 1 to 10 using 2i steps.

>>16023126
In conclusion, just because you call it a nonstandard base instead of nonrealistic base doesn't make it more realistic for counting, you still admit that it isn't actually the same as real bases and doesn't provide the same standard functions when even something as simple as counting from 1 to 10 is not possible in those irrational and imaginary bases.

this is the most industrious effortbaiting I've yet seen on /sci/, and we had some great ones with monty hall or the portal problem

>>16023216
I can't tell if you are seething about being unable to count from 1 to 10 in an irrational or imaginary base or if you are making fun of people who said they could, but obviously failed to do it over and over and over and over.

>>16023225
Honestly, you should publish your discovery of the deep flaw in the foundations of mathematics, it would shatter the academic establishment

>>16023231
There is nothing to publish even wiki says nonstandard bases don't comply with being a fully functioning numeral system, only dunning-kruger retards ITT are pretending like they can count in imaginary or irrational bases while continually failing to prove such a thing is possible.

Deep flaws about the foundations of mathematics have already been published in previous centuries, so we know it is an incomplete and logically explosive system.

>Call set of numbers "Real" numbers
>Nobody questions they exist even if you literally cannot type most of them
>Call simpler and more intuitive set of numbers "complex/imaginary"
>Everybody refuses to believe in them

>>16023282
How is complex "simpler" when you literally can't come up with them without first having reals, then negatives, then the square root function?

>>16016966
Someone needs to call the electricians and tell them they're using for the last 100 years something that's not applicable in the real world.

>>16023296
99% of Electricians have no idea what base-2i is and 100% of them have never had to count in that base to hook up electrical components.

>>16023298
I see you are well versed in not knowing what electricians are actually doing.

>>16023299
You obviosly don't even know the difference between an electrical engineer and an electrician, but you could easily prove your claim by showing a single electricians guidebook, quickguide, textbook, or training manual that ever mentions quater-imaginary base.

>>16023303
So in addition to your ignorance about electricians you are also ignorant about the required curriculum.

Here you go btw: https://www.amazon.com/Practical-Electronics-Inventors-Fourth-Scherz/dp/1259587541

>>16023304
Since you didn't actually link to the text, just a link to buy it, what page does quater-imaginary base appear and what does it say about counting in that base?

>>16023306
Chapter 2.26.

https://archive.org/details/practical-electronics-for-inventors-4th-edition-by-paul-scherz-simon-monk-z-lib.org
>Search inside quater-imaginary base 0 results
>Search inside imaginary base 0 results
More ignorant lies on you part I see.

>>16023310
That is about complex numbers, not base-2i, but you obviously don't understand the difference since you can only seem to count in decimals then convert to complex since counting in complex bases is impossible.

>>16023312
>That is about complex numbers
Yes.
>do you think imaginary numbers exist?
>If a number system isn't even useful enough to count or describe real world objects
So they do exist and are used in real world application. You randomly starting talking about quater-imaginary base is not my problem.

>>16023327
No, we have been talking about it ITT for quite a while, the post you replied to literally said quater-imaginary base rather than complex numbers and you are obviously too dumb to understand the difference or explain how electricians use quarter-imaginary base despite claiming it was crucial.

>>16023329
>we have been talking about it ITT for quite a while
Don't care, I was referring to the original question.

magic numbers exist, they come from above. you can use them to make magic squares.

>>16023348
Don't care, you replied to someone saying you had some evidence you clearly don't have and were proven to be a liar, so the things you refer to don't matter given they are most probably just more lies.

>>16024314
Lol

>>16024449
Yes, Legions Of Lies is all you have to support your bullshit claims.

>>16024454
Are you saying the book I linked is lies?

>>16024533
You definitely lied about its relevance since it doesn't once mention quarter-imaginary base, the thing you specifically replied saying it did pertain to.
>>16023303
>>16023304

>>16024539
So is it filled with lies or not?

>>16024540
Yes your posts are full of lies and bullshit claims about how textbooks support your lies.

>>16024544
I'm not asking about my posts, I'm asking about the book.

>>16024546
Yes and I clearly told you that you definitely lied about its relevance since it doesn't mention quarter-imaginary base like you said it did.

>>16024561
So why is the chapter about complex numbers a lie?

>>16024570
You lied about the chapter being about how electricians need to know how to use quarter-imaginary base when the chapter has nothing to do with such a thing and never even mentions quarter-imaginary base let alone asserts that using it is crucial to being an electrician.

>>16024573
I got that part ten posts ago, I'm not talking about my posts I'm talking about the content of the book. My mistake was not reading the whole thread, the OP clearly asks about imaginary numbers not quarter-imaginary base. Now what does it lie about complex numbers?

>>16024581
You didn't reply to OP, you replied to the post about quarter-imaginary bases and said that the book proves that it is crucial for electricians to know when 99% of electricians will have no idea what a quarter-imaginary base even is let alone if it has utility.
You lied in saying that the book had anything to do with nonstandard bases, you are the retarded liar, not the book, quit trying to scapegoat the book for your own obvious retardation.

>>16024593
We passed all that, I said it's my mistake. Why you keep returning to that when instead we can have a discussion? So the book is not lying, yeah? Then imaginary numbers exist and have a practical use or what?

>>16024596
The rules of Quidditch can have practical applications too, it doesn't make it crucial to anything and it doesn't put it on the same level as being good at real sports and it doesn't make being good at sports on the same level as mastering a trade.

>>16024599
Why would you think complex numbers are not important to electronics?

>>16024605
You can just use sqrt(-1) without creating a whole new imaginary dimension while ignoring complex values, so complex numbers are easily replaceable which by definition means they are not crucial.

>>16024610
Nice try.

>>16024615
Why are you so mad that I don't have to lie to make my points?

>>16024622
I don't think you're lying, I think you're honest. I would like to see your idea applied, I think it would be hilarious.

>>16024729
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_754
It doesn't implement complex floating points, you do just have to leave things at sqrt(-1), but it isn't really hilarious, just calculations that can sometimes be novel, but are mostly just boring and repetitive.

>>16025889
lol

>>16025980
I guess other people find IEEE standards more hilarious than I do.

>>16015225
That is a stupid question. It's like asking do natural numbers exist.

>>16026005
So you think that it makes just as much sense to have a natural number of things as it does to have an imaginary number of things?

>>16026022
Being able to use a number system to count things doesn't make the number system "exist". Complex numbers are used to count things that are more abstract than a number of items. Complex numbers aren't necessary, you can just use a 2x2 matrix instead, but it's easier to manipulate the square root of minus 1 symbolically than shit up your working with a bunch of 2x2 matrices.

>>16026030
The class of things that "exist" are real things, real values can actually describe real things that actually exist while other classes of numbers are mostly just mental wankery to make people feel smart for memorizing unnecessarily convoluted bullshit.

>it's easier to manipulate the square root of minus 1 symbolically than shit up your working with a bunch of 2x2 matrices.
It easier to just say god did it than to actually observe nature closely enough to be able to discern real things from imaginary things too.

tldr: descartes and it consequences have been a disaster for humanity, oh and god bless overly confident subwits, they truly have earned a life of utter uselessness

>>16015225
>is imaginary real?
affirming crack-addicts mathematics was a mistake

>>16026036
Yes, but numbers of any sort aren't things. All numbers are imaginary. We use natural numbers as a tool. We use real numbers as a tool. We use complex numbers as a tool. The mandlebrot set is mildly interesting, more so to peole who care a lot about math. There's no need for you to attack the use of a particular mathematical tool. For some reason you think drawing this false dichotomy between 'real' and 'imaginary' numbers makes you smart. It doesn't. Imaginary is just a term mathematicians use. It seems you've misunderstood that.

>>16015225
Does it matter if they exist, or if I believe that they exist? What good is that question?

>>16026368
>All numbers are imaginary.
Yet some can actually be used directly to describe real things while others have no real utility and just serve as shorthand to expedite calculation of real numbers.

>false dichotomy between 'real' and 'imaginary' numbers
>Imaginary is just a term mathematicians use.
If there wasn't an actual dichotomy between real and imaginary number, they wouldn't have different names and different applications, the term for imaginary numbers wouldn't be necessary if they were exactly the same as real numbers, you don't understand why they are different and what they can do if you can't see why the class of real numbers has more real utility than the class of imaginary numbers.

>attack
Why are you so emotionally invested as if someone is threatening your ability to imagine, nobody was attacking anything, some types of numbers are just more useful and have more real world applications than others, no matter how much you kvetch.

>>16027395
>have no real utility and just serve as shorthand to expedite calculation
This speaks for itself.


>the class of real numbers has more real utility than the class of imaginary numbers
>more useful and have more real world applications than others

A having more real utility than B doesn't imply that B has no utility, but that is the conclusion you draw. It's clear that you're a CSfag and that you don't really understand the point of complex numbers. You also aren't mathematically aware enough to avoid the fallacy I've highlighted. Forcing this fallacy does amount to an attack on a tool that has some utility.

>>16027417
>but that is the conclusion you draw.
No, I am the one saying that some numbers are more realistic than others, not that made bullshit can't have utility.

>>16027559
>realistic
Define.

>>16027679
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/realistic
>accurately representing what is natural

Start here >>16015481 and reread the reply chain from here to there because you seem to just be starting a new cycle of a bunch of basic things that have already been covered ITT.

>>16027696
>accurately representing what is natural
For, e.g., photons to travel in straight lines, rather than some sort of *irrational* zigzag movement, their angles to each other must be at least expressible in terms of sums of rational fractions. Maybe there's a limit in nature where it gives up and doesn't somehow represent the angle as an infinite sum of rational fractions or as a real number, but truncates things and then shares energy or whatever. There's an infinite number of possible laws of physics but until we see evidence for anything like that it's easier to assume the universe maintains a countable amount of information for the angle between two photons. There are then an uncountable number of possible angles between two photons. Your fear of irrational numbers is quite irrational.

>>16027753
Nature doesn't care about your numbers, those problems you mentioned are a result of units being unable to express their diagonals, not about nature being accurately represented by number's infinite sums.

I don't fear them, I see them as a symptom of an incomplete logically explosive system of value that can just as easily be used to model things that aren't realistic or natural as it can to approximate things that are. You fear admitting your system of value is flawed and not entirely realistic even though you can never actually calculate the true value of something as simple as sqrt(2) due to it defying unitary notation while representing a diagonal to the base unit.

>>16015225
No, I mean exponentiation isn't the force of the product of you're looking for when you're trying to root negative numbers, but you are looking for multiplication of negative and positive number.

>>16015894
How do you add two rotations (plus extensions)?

>>16015522
One day we of the ONE TRUE FINITE FAITH will rise up and put all the GOD CURSED INFINITY LOVING SODOMITES to the sword.

>>16027965
>how do you add two linear maps

>>16027965
you multiply the complex numbers or matrices that represent them

>>16028132
>you multiply
No, I can afford to pay people to do that kind of thing for me, I asked how YOU do it.

>>16028137
too bad you can't buy being witty

>>16027780
You're assuming nature can't perform supertasks. All of your reasoning stems from this assumption.

>>16028746
No, I am simply acknowledging the obvious fact that you will never completely understand nature and your counting tricks and attempts to credit supertasks or whatever else will never be able to fully describe nature.

>>16028749
>you will never
I never said I can understand nature. I said it's easier to assume that it's continuous.
>never be able to fully describe nature
But you can, simply by throwing away the concept of continuity?

>>16028759
The number system lacks continuity, there is no way to create a continuous count from an infinitesimal to an infinite, yet another reason your system of value is obviously incomplete and not representative of nature. I am not throwing out continuity, I am just showing your that your illusory system of continuity is quite obviously flawed, not that I understand nature myself, I just understand that your attempt to model it is observably and demonstrably flawed.

>>16028763
>The number system lacks continuity
*Naturals and Rationals lack continuity
>>16028763
>there is no way to create a continuous count
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_real_numbers
>>16028763
>from an infinitesimal to an infinite
?
>>16028763
>system of value
humanities tier wishy washy phrase that could mean anything
>is obviously incomplete
how so?
>and not representative of nature
prove it
>>16028763
>illusory system of continuity
>I just understand that [mathematician's] attempt to model it is observably and demonstrably flawed
Then prove this mathematically and publish a paper on it. Otherwise you're just regurgitating ultrafinitist arguments you don't understand.

>>16028814
>*Naturals and Rationals lack continuity
No, they all lack perfect continuity because they all suffer from zeno's paradox.

>?
There is no continuity from 0 to an infinitesimal, so you can not count in infinitesimal increments from beginning to end, so there is no actual continuity.

>humanities tier wishy washy phrase that could mean anything
I am obviously using it to refer to number system and math, though, sorry for your poor reading comprehension and inability to pick up on context clues.

>how so?
>prove it
>Then prove this mathematically and publish a paper on it.
The Incompleteness Theorems were already published nearly 100 years ago.

>>16015225
Imaginary numbers are just the depth dimension. So let me disagree with everyone in this thread and say that yes, imaginary numbers are real.

>>16015225
[math]1[/math] is the null (or full) unit constant, [math]-1[/math] is the straight unit constant, and [math]i[/math] is the right unit constant. We can't touch them, but we can think them. Our collective symbolic experience of them is their existence.

>>16028814
You're wasting your time. Just ignore him. If he wants to be retarded he can be retarded. I spent far too much time trying to explain how counting isn't the only useful thing numbers can do, and counting can be done in an arbitrary base, and how counting is done in arbitrary bases for different encoding schemes. None of this mattered to him because he has a faith based belief and none of the tools to evaluate whether that faith based belief might be wrong.

>>16028818
I really wish people would stop pretending CS is actually a stem discipline. It may have been at one point, but now it seems to just be a factory for code monkeys and turbo autists.

>>16015225
Yes. We would be a century behind in tech without them.

do real number exist? do continuous curves,surfaces and volumes exist in the physical world? as far as I'm aware fluids are not examples of continuous volumes. finally do you any example of a a real life example for the cardinality of the continuum?

>>16031282
no

>>16028818
>zeno's paradox.
>in anno domini MMXXIV
maybe teaching brainlets math was a mistake...

>>16029529
>the depth dimension
id call it height, but other than that, yeah

>>16031282
>finally do you have* any example
you are a retarded finitist, but ftfy

>>16031282
>do real number exist?
ye

>>16015225
>do you think imaginary numbers exist?
Do you think any numbers exist?

Literally in the name that they are imaginary its all in your head

>>16023216
If mods were smart, they’d use threads like this to ban retards and baiters

>>16031324
I see you still can't point out any actual continuity from infinitesimals to finite units to infinities, but at least you feel smart because you fancy yourself better than zeno.

>>16031662
I think a specific number of real number things can exist, but a specific number of imaginary things does not actually exist.

none of the words in this thread are in the bible

>>16032556
4ch can't afford hiring janitors with a phd.

>>16032458
no, they are named so because descartes got filtered by them and he was a salty bitch

>>16033380
>I see you still can't point out any actual continuity from infinitesimals to finite units to infinities
i don't need to, i decree that you deserve to be retarded as punishment for your hubris, enjoy life as you have earned it

>>16033895
i mean yeah, the bible wasn't written in english, it was koine greek or something along those lines, if i remember correctly

>>16034570
Doesn't hubris refer to when Dunning–Kruger tier retards like you think they have proven something that they clearly haven't like some supposed infinite continuity that doesn't seem to actually exist, so they are more proud of themselves than they should be for an accomplishment they did not actually achieve?

If i doesn't exist you should really question if negative numbers exist. They are a construct that represent a length less than zero, which is an abomination when thought on long enough. i is just an extention of that abomination.
Best of luck midwits.