[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

# /sci/ - Science & Math

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 187 KB, 1331x2000, 1542255597972.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Why do we need to learn about complex numbers if they are imaginary? Numbers that aren't real don't exist in physical reality. Bobby doesn't get i apples from Joey. The boiling point of water is not i. The load on a beam will never be a multiple of i under any corcumstances. When we solve x^2 + 1 we get no solution. The number i is not real, it exists only in he imagination of virginal eggheads. Should we learn about unicorns too because they are imaginary just for the sake of needless masturbatory abstraction?

 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 02:38:20 2019 No.10485189 >>10485174Because they make many calculations much easier.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 02:44:04 2019 No.10485197 >mathematics is how much apples has Joey given to BobbyAre you fucking 8?
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 02:49:54 2019 No.10485207 >>10485174We should about unicorns too because they are useful tool for solving equations and interesting part of cryptozoology. Sometimes you can visit land of fantasy and hard problems of rainbow analysis become easy if you call your unicorn friends. Also you are retarded if you think that numbers exists in physical reality.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 02:51:31 2019 No.10485211 >>10485197Says the guy who imagines up fake numbers. That is a level of delusion rivalling intersectional wymyn stydies.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 02:57:35 2019 No.10485217 >>10485207The set of natural numbers: what you can count on your fingers and toes, by definition.The set of integers: whole numbers including negative values.Rational numbers: the numbers expressed as a ratio of two ingeres. A fraction where the denominator is not equal to zero. Integers are elements of this set.Irrational numbers: numbers that are not logical.The set of real numbers: all numbers which exist. The rational numbers and irrational numbers.The set of complex numbers: numbers with a real part and an imaginary part that does not exist.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 03:00:46 2019 No.10485224 please stop posting hot girls on /sci/
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 03:02:41 2019 No.10485228 >>10485174>Why do we need to learn about complex numbers if they are imaginary? Electrical engineering.Next question.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 03:03:28 2019 No.10485230 You don't have to, but if you don't your not gonna make it very far into the electricxal engineering curriculum because the math's become way too hard if you DON'T use complex numbers.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 03:05:43 2019 No.10485236 >>10485228So if I rub an ebonic rod with cat fur will the charge be the square root of -1? No?
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 03:07:36 2019 No.10485240 >>10485236That has nothing to do with electrical engineering. Please refer to last 100 years of literature and not your own ass.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 03:08:00 2019 No.10485242 >>10485228This^ thanks based anon
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 03:08:57 2019 No.10485244 File: 370 KB, 1064x1600, 26.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10485174The numbers don't exist because math doesn't exist. EVERYONE NEEDS TO WAKE UP RIGHT NOW
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 03:10:48 2019 No.10485247 >>10485174Because of some idiot named Euler who decided to put e to an imaginary power
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 03:13:26 2019 No.10485254 >>10485174Real numbers don't exist in reality, either.You don't need "need" to do anything, anon.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 03:14:20 2019 No.10485256 >>10485228Oh also[eqn]i\hbar\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\frac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial \mathbf{x}^2} + V(\mathbf{x},t)\psi[/eqn]
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 03:22:06 2019 No.10485264 >>10485174>those liver spots on her thighLiterally unfuckable
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 03:29:30 2019 No.10485275 >>10485217Where's my -6 finger?
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 03:44:52 2019 No.10485286 >>10485217$\displaystyle\boxed{ \mathbb{O} \;\boxed{ \mathbb{H} \;\boxed{ \mathbb{C} \; \boxed{ \mathbb{R} \;\boxed{ \mathbb{Q} \;\boxed{ \mathbb{Z} \; \boxed{ \mathbb{N}}}}}}}}$
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 04:04:33 2019 No.10485310 You can represent a 2d plane using only one number as the coordinate. Also phasors
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 05:50:30 2019 No.10485409 How is this /sci/ material?
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 06:38:30 2019 No.10485456 Complex analysis enables you to solve problems involving real numbers. Hence, it's useful.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 07:18:39 2019 No.10485496 >>10485174It helps you solve trig problems since you can rewrite trig functions in exponential form
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 07:19:37 2019 No.10485497 File: 126 KB, 1131x622, 1524096701740.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10485174How will math majors LARP as contributing to society if they're unable to extend their subject to literal made up bullshit and pretend that solving problems within the made up bullshit matters?
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 07:22:50 2019 No.10485504 >>10485174How can anyone on this board with a 3 digit IQ fall for this bait
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 07:34:09 2019 No.10485517 >>10485497It does matter, see electronic engineering.The device you are shitposting on right now is working because of complex numbers.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 07:49:50 2019 No.10485529 >>10485174They aren't imaginary, they are as real as all other consistent number systems and they objectively exist in the Platonic realm
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 08:07:37 2019 No.10485553 Imaginary numbers pop up in physics all the time. This is representation but just more complex than representation as objects. Numbers obviously don't exist irl retard.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 08:08:42 2019 No.10485557 >>10485517Yeah this thread is the type of shit I'd expect to see popup anywhere but /sci/. Unbelievably low iq content.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 08:09:51 2019 No.10485560 File: 502 KB, 920x900, 1534657028250.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 08:13:00 2019 No.10485564 >>10485529Where is the platonic realm? Is that where virgin mathematicians dwell?
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 08:17:47 2019 No.10485573 Thats why people hate the term imaginary number, they have their existence in our world in a sinilar way to irrational numbers.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 08:23:37 2019 No.10485588 >>10485217Show me one atom of natural jumber. Or molecule of zero. Show me length exactly of √2. Numbers are social construct. And you are discriminating me
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 08:25:34 2019 No.10485591 >>10485573Irrational numbers have a physical or geometric representation. Pi is the circumference of a circle, e is a rate of change. What is i? Draw a geometric representation of i for me. No, the real vs imaginary coordinate thing doesn't count.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 08:43:05 2019 No.10485615 >>10485591>No, the real vs imaginary coordinate thing doesn't countwhy not retard
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 09:08:35 2019 No.10485657 >>10485189Are you a retard
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 09:12:26 2019 No.10485664 >>10485591Complex numbers have an algebraic representation. $i$ is a root of $x^2+1$.Working in algebraic closures is often nicer than working in plain fields.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 09:53:51 2019 No.10485734 >>10485664 x^2 + 1 has no roots because it is an upward facing parabola shifted up 1 unit so it does not touch the x axis. It has roots only in the unicorn space of imaginary bullshit.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 09:55:28 2019 No.10485737 >>10485734Parabolas have nothing to do with algebra.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 09:58:17 2019 No.10485745 >>10485174science is as imaginary as complex numbers you faggotobjective reality doesn't exist as you see it so why not just kys, its imaginary after all
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 10:08:08 2019 No.10485760 File: 484 KB, 644x648, 436ff4fa4603f02c866e67e2d6a555f7.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10485174>Bobby doesn't get i apples from Joey.No, but Bobby can have 4+3i volts over his circuit element. And offshore roughneck Joey can easily load 8-2i kN onto his string. Complex numbers are just like normal cartesian vectors but with some extra very useful properties. They are as " real" and "exist" just as much as any other number.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 10:09:24 2019 No.10485765 >>10485591But they did have a physical interpretation, retard. See >>10485760
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 10:18:13 2019 No.10485786 >>10485174This 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.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 10:19:46 2019 No.10485793 >>10485786jfcI guess literal brainlet engineers are better at math than you
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 10:20:25 2019 No.10485794 obvious bait
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 10:22:42 2019 No.10485802 >>10485560I'm not angry, fren, I'm trying to enlighten you>>10485564It exists as the superclass in which this physical universe derives it's laws to function, as a subset.Also engineer majors are 95% men while math is about 50/50, so it's quite humorous for a lowly engineer brainlet to call a math chad a virgin.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 10:23:54 2019 No.10485806 >>10485802fuck off with your platonic shit
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 10:26:25 2019 No.10485811 >>10485806>fuck off with the truthI will not.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 11:03:26 2019 No.10485918 >>10485174Please look into Fourier transforms, faggot
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 11:10:09 2019 No.10485932 >>10485256That is the Schrodinger equation!!
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 11:14:37 2019 No.10485948 >>10485174No one who uses math for their work actually needs to argue with you in order to go on with their lives.If you can't recognize the factual usefulness of mathematics then I have the feeling no amount of explanation would allow you to understand.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 11:16:39 2019 No.10485957 >>10485932Real numbers are useful but imaginary numbers are not because they are made up.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 11:21:00 2019 No.10485971 >>10485957real numbers are just as made up as complex numbers. Both are just extensions of our number systems to satisfy the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 11:22:09 2019 No.10485973 None of them are "made up" they are not human inventions or human dependent.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 11:23:38 2019 No.10485979 >>10485973>platonist nigger
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 11:23:42 2019 No.10485981 File: 646 KB, 904x401, 1537911493072.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 11:26:27 2019 No.10485991 >>10485979There has not yet been a single argument against it>>10485981Not an argumentStay seething
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 11:31:17 2019 No.10486005 >>10485991you haven't made a single argument
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 11:35:42 2019 No.10486014 >>10486005Not in this thread, but in a others, and guess what? Not a single counter argument.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 11:35:45 2019 No.10486015 >>10486005Plenty of arguments have been made ITT that complex numbers are "real"
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 11:48:02 2019 No.10486037 File: 827 KB, 1280x1164, Hydrogen_Density_Plots.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] The last hundred years of physics have depended on the mathematical properties of complex numbers. The complex numbers themselves are never observed in measurements, but the mechanics of the theory depends on them crucially.Say goodbye to your MRIs, PET scans, molecular modeling, lasers, electron microscopes, semiconductor physics, etc.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 11:49:01 2019 No.10486038 >>10485174Complex numbers are just real numbers in 2D
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 17:25:05 2019 No.10486815 >>10486038This.Complex numbers are 2d vectors that multiply together exactly the way you would intuitively expect vectors to multiply, not that unsatisfying dot product vector """multiplication""" bullshitLiterally just define (a,b)*(c,d) = (ac-bd, bc+ad) and you can easily see the multiplication sums the angles from the positive x axis and multiplies the distances from the origin. Then you just put an "i" next to the second coordinate and say it's square is -1 as a shorthand for remembering the definition formula. Numbers with an i are not less real, it's quick shorthand for an extra structure you put on some vector quantities.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 17:37:30 2019 No.10486840 >>10485588you go girl !
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 17:42:55 2019 No.10486851 >>10485504op picture helpssex sells
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 23:31:02 2019 No.10487525 >>10485217>Irrational numbers: numbers that are not logical.>The set of real numbers: all numbers which exist.oh my god thank you
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 23:42:23 2019 No.10487548 >>10485174Engineers and electricians use i all the time, fuck off and learn something instead of shitposting.
 >> Anonymous Thu Mar 21 23:52:17 2019 No.10487570 >>10485174watch and learn, unless you are a brainlet with the attention span of a gnat, in which case keep on shitposting brotherhttps://youtu.be/T647CGsuOVU
 >> Anonymous Fri Mar 22 00:01:43 2019 No.10487587 File: 25 KB, 200x200, Front art.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10485174i honestly cant tell if this is a shit posting thread or an honest inquiry into the reason for why we have certain machinery in mathemetics. Well, simply put, mathematics is an arbitrary language with the property of self coherence. Maths are developed in order to deconstruct and generate sophisticated systems in an effort to find solutions to difficult problems. Fundamentally, what makes a language or tool useful is it's ability to create solutions and ease of use." imaginary" numbers are such an example of a useful tool. if you want to learn more about abstract mathematics read up on abstract mathematics, number theory, fundamental mathematics or logic. But who am i kidding. this is likely just a shit posting thread
 >> Anonymous Fri Mar 22 02:56:36 2019 No.10487863 >>10485217The only thing that you got right was the natural numbers. Proof OP is a brainlet and still uses fingers to do basic arithmetic.
 >> Anonymous Fri Mar 22 03:15:28 2019 No.10487886 >>10485217Here's how it actually works:>have nothing of interest >don't count things, numbers don't exist to you>have a bunch of interesting things for whatever reasone>would like to count them>invent naturals to do so>can add them and multiply them, even exponent them>it makes sense with the language you use>having x and y = having x+y>having x of y = having xy>having x ys of ys times kinda means having y^x, but language has its limitations>only the greatest scholars of your society use exponentiation anyway>life goes on>lose all your shit>describe your situation of having nothing>zero is now a number>that's neat it sort of still works with adding and multiplying>have a bunch of shit and nothing else>x+0= x lmao>have none of this shit>0x=0 lmao>again, exponentiation is tricky, and nobody but the best and brightest use it anyway, so it's not that big of a deal when they settle the debate of how 0 behaves as a base and an exponenent>probably defined so that notation of exponents makes sense in algebraic scenarios>Anyway, people are getting really tired of saying things like, "the number of things i need more than I have to get what I want," and, "enough parts of the whole to put together this many times to make the whole" So subtraction and division are defined on the Naturals, respectively>the greatest minds (not you) are probably inventing roots and logs as well>people naturally divide things amongst themselves, like land, food, livestock, money etc.>some things, like livestock, are hard to agree on what a fractional part is, so they are only defined with integer quotients, or remainders>some things, like land (provided your society has measurement), can be divided in any way (it's easiest as squares and rectangles), so we now have positive rationals, like one half or two thirds of an acre of land>but someone must pay for this land>and perhaps he must go into debt
 >> Anonymous Fri Mar 22 03:31:47 2019 No.10487900 >>10487886>so whoever is in charge of recording debts must figure out how much is to be paid>but he must do arithmetic to figure out exactly how much is owed and how much has been paid for>and not all debts are settled by currency>anyway he's figuring out his shit and he comes to a problem>differences are only defined on naturals, and now you need negative numbers>but how can you have negative of anything?>it doesn't matter since this is just a technique to make computation easier>for all intents and purposes, negatives are a debt, and debts can be settled by paying back positives>and the great minds of your time prove all the properties work neatly>it's the same thing with imaginary numbers>the smart people use them so whenever their calculations lead to the square root of a negative number, they don't have to stop and figure out how to work the problem a different way>they just say root -1 is i, and hope that eventually they will square their problem again and all imagination will be checked by reality>but you're not a great mind, so you wouldn't know
 >> Anonymous Fri Mar 22 04:10:18 2019 No.10487933 >>10485228They're "imaginary" but they represent real quantifiable things. You can use polar coordinates/math to do everything the j-operator accomplishes, it just takes extra steps to convert everything back and forth. Using imaginary numbers is more of a trick to keep track of things that are more intuitively explained using two separate coordinate systems at the same time but you just want to use one for simplicity. Hence they're not exactly imaginary, they're an artifact from how you simplified the problem you're solving.
 >> Anonymous Fri Mar 22 04:23:55 2019 No.10487941 >>10485174Complex numbers are literally just a better way of expressing Cartesian coordinates dumb ass, there’s nothing less real about them
 >> Anonymous Fri Mar 22 04:32:12 2019 No.10487946 >>10485174Don't worry OP, you won't ever use complex numbers. But one of the smart kids might
 >> Anonymous Fri Mar 22 05:51:24 2019 No.10488008 >>10487933>Using imaginary numbers is more of a trick to keep track of things that are more intuitively explained using two separate coordinate systems at the same time but you just want to use one for simplicity.EXACTLY this. This guy gets it. That's why they're useful for dealing with propagation of waves for example, which constitutes nearly fucking everything.Calling them "imaginary" was the most dumb shit thing anyone ever came up with because if they were smart they would have anticipated dumb shits like >>10485174 latching onto the turn of phrase to make stupid arguments. Also you can check out Quarternion numbers for extending this concept into 4 dimensions, which is useful for things like quantum mechanics and computer graphics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion
 >> Anonymous Fri Mar 22 05:56:49 2019 No.10488016 >>10485497>imaginary "proof"You forgot to use the complex conjugate when computing that hypotenuse; pythagorean theorem is really to square root of a times its complex conjugate added to b times its complex conjugate. It just so happens that for real numbers that's the same as squaring them.
 >> Anonymous Fri Mar 22 12:41:12 2019 No.10488614 >>10485217>Irrational numbers: numbers that are not logical.There is nothing illogical about irrational numbers
 >> Anonymous Fri Mar 22 15:19:19 2019 No.10489066 File: 79 KB, 800x720, ComplexaTalplanet-3[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10487933>>10488008I agree with you two. the name "imaginary" is VERY WRONG in terms of linguistic description, a better name could be "intensity" or even better "magnitude"...the term "imaginary" is a relic from that argand paper.
 >> Anonymous Fri Mar 22 16:47:30 2019 No.10489246 Real numbers are the problem my son.t.wildberger
 >> Anonymous Fri Mar 22 18:01:22 2019 No.10489420 >>10485657He's right you know, even for harmonic oscillations equations it's easier to go by complex numbers
 >> Anonymous Fri Mar 22 22:34:04 2019 No.10489865 File: 2.37 MB, 2240x1738, Evans Mode -update.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
 >> Anonymous Fri Mar 22 22:42:22 2019 No.10489887 http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=abs%28i%29+×+-1Higher math is such a scam.
 >> Anonymous Fri Mar 22 22:47:10 2019 No.10489895 >>10489066The term confuses the definition of extra dimensions. You can plot a vertical and horizontal number line, but thats a grid with parameters (X, Y), not (Re, Im)
 >> Anonymous Sat Mar 23 00:22:47 2019 No.10490068 Because the numbers are not imaginary.Also>i instead of jlmaooo
 >> Anonymous Sat Mar 23 00:25:10 2019 No.10490072 >>10490068Pure math niggers utterly BTFO by this post
 >> Anonymous Sat Mar 23 01:40:13 2019 No.10490140 >>10485174Real numbers dont exist in reality either.
 >> Anonymous Sat Mar 23 01:50:48 2019 No.10490148 >>10485174You never know if these threads are shameless bait or some high school brainlet who's having a hard time with his homework.
 >> Anonymous Sat Mar 23 02:02:23 2019 No.10490164 >>10485957The device you shitpost on literally uses complex numbers to operate. Either you believe that complex numbers are bullshit, or you can use your computer. You can't do both.
 >> Anonymous Sat Mar 23 14:23:14 2019 No.10491151 >>10487933>>10488008>>10489066>>10489895The term "imaginary number" was explicitly made and propagated by retards like OP some centuries ago to discredit the concept and make it look absurd. Gauss suggested "lateral numbers" instead, which would have worked much better IMO.Unfortunately, the former term won out, and it and the misconception fundamental to it persist to this day. At least people who actually do math for a living know the term is bullshit, but it managed to fool pretty much everyone else, which only serves to bring down the perception of math as a whole.
>>