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

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

# /sci/ - Science & Math

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 2 KB, 318x159, in.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Obvious bullshit

 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:16:06 2020 No.11954086 File: 104 KB, 1125x513, 155340F9-950F-4191-AE3A-5BF20E7D483B.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11954084Obvious bullshit
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:20:07 2020 No.11954096 >>11954084the square root of a negative number is really just undefined.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:24:02 2020 No.11954108 >>11954096It's undefined if you can't concieve of 2X2 matrices yeah.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:26:28 2020 No.11954118 >>11954108there is no number, N, such that N added N times will give you its additive inverse.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:27:16 2020 No.11954121 >>11954118N = i
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:28:06 2020 No.11954125 >>11954121you cant just be making stuff up. thats hocus pocus not mathematics
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:30:08 2020 No.11954135 >>11954108We're talking about numbers, not about matrices. -1 is not a matrix, so its root shouldn't be a matrix. And you can't even take the root of a matrix unless it's diagonalizable.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:31:11 2020 No.11954137 >>11954084What’s wrong you can set it equal to that. Nothing inherently wrong with doing so.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:33:14 2020 No.11954141 >>11954125They didnt make it up. There’s a canonical ring isomorphism between the set of complex numbers and the reals modded out by the idea generated by x^2 = -1. Why do the math illiterate act as if people haven’t done proofs studying this?
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:33:16 2020 No.11954142 To all those who believe in "imaginary numbers": Tell me what is the numerical value of i in decimals? Pi is 3.1 and e is 2.7. How do I enter i into a calculator?
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:35:19 2020 No.11954145 >>11954142i isn’t in the set of reals without you first modding out by an ideal. Either way, many calculators can do calculations with i. In the complex numbers, i is the imaginary unit, so its decimal form could be represented by a vector of real decimals (0, 1)
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:36:30 2020 No.11954148 File: 2 KB, 161x197, math_imaginary.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] $\displaystylea+ib \leftrightarrow \begin{bmatrix} a&-b \\ b&a\end{bmatrix}$
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:43:45 2020 No.11954165 Why is it obvious and why is it bullshit?
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:45:40 2020 No.11954172 >>11954165It’s a meme format now that someone did this with 0.99... = 1
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:46:15 2020 No.11954173 >>11954125well it's not a real number, that's for sure.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:49:58 2020 No.11954182 i isn't even a number it's a letter jesus christ
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:50:09 2020 No.11954183 >>11954135it's a 1x1 matrix. like how many matrices are just tiny tensors.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:51:27 2020 No.11954188 >>11954183And tensors are just arrays
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:56:06 2020 No.11954203 You are right. As -i is forgotten. (-i)*(-i)=-1 too.
 >> El Arcón Thu Jul 30 14:57:53 2020 No.11954216 take your meds
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:59:38 2020 No.11954228 >>11954216You first, muh neighborhood at infinity hatYou’re part of the problem
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:02:37 2020 No.11954235 File: 58 KB, 1035x529, ticxcasimag.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11954142>Pi is 3.1 and e is 2.7. How do I enter i into a calculator?Easily. There is two ways to do it with my calculator. See the red-circled buttons to accees these menus.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:03:05 2020 No.11954237 >>11954125>you cant just be making stuff up. thdidnt we make all the other numbers up too?i isnt any more made up than 1/21/2 is the solution to 2x - 1 = 0 i is the solution to x^2 - 1 = 0>>11954142>Tell me what is the numerical value of i in decimals?0.0 + 1.0 * i
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:06:24 2020 No.11954248 >>11954135>>11954148Learn about matrices first bro. Complex numbers can be used to think about rotations. They are applied in electrical engineering, optics, etc.. anything with waves, so everything.There is nothing more "Real" about the reals. They are numbers, logical constructions. Also the complex numbers extend the reals, and unify things like square roots (that produce two values) into one object.
 >> le acorn no1 fan Thu Jul 30 15:08:56 2020 No.11954255 >>11954216shut the fuck up imposterfag
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:10:45 2020 No.11954262 $i\neq \sqrt{-1}$retards need to stop spouting this definition, when the real definition is:$i^2 \equiv -1$
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:15:25 2020 No.11954276 >>11954248>Complex numbers can be used to think about rotations.Not really, just a coincidence that some complex numbers are similar to rotational matrices.>They are applied in electrical engineering, optics, etc.. anything with waves, so everythingOnly as helpful tool in the middle of calculations. Physics problems should start with real numbers only. Also solutions should be given with real numbers only. Want to describe rotation in 2D? Use 2D vectors and possibly 2x2 real matrices.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:15:58 2020 No.11954278 >>11954121>>11954237>durrr it’s just defined that way1/0=u(1/0)*3=3uThere, I just defined 1/0 according to your smooth brain
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:28:33 2020 No.11954319 >>11954276NoIf i'm describing a rotation I will use complex numbers just to spite brainlets who can't into 2x2 matrices
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:29:15 2020 No.11954323 >>11954262there is no real number that satisfies that equation
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:29:30 2020 No.11954324 >>11954278what is 0*u? is it 1? is it 0? stop using this retarded example because it doesn't follow the rules of multiplication
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:30:11 2020 No.11954328 >>11954276>Only as helpful tool in the middle of calculations. Physics problems should start with real numbers only. Also solutions should be given with real numbers only. Want to describe rotation in 2D? Use 2D vectors and possibly 2x2 real matrices.Hahaha and what are real numbers huh? do you think a continuous line infinite in both directions but infinite also in its microscopic scale exists?Or.. is it... just a helpful tool. oh..
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:30:21 2020 No.11954331 >>11954278cool, youve just made a number system thats very inconvenient to use, since we need to drop all sorts of nice propertiesbut its still a thing, we just dont use it because of how much of a pain it isunlike the super easy and useful complex numbershttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_theory
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:30:59 2020 No.11954332 imagine getting filtered by complex numbers of all things. if this is the case then there are other boards that are more your speed.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:33:20 2020 No.11954344 I dont understand the underlying philosophical motivation to reject the complex numbers.Is is some dumbfuck brainlet idea that numbers "have to have a physical correspondence" or something? What is it? Why does the imaginary unit cause brainlets to seethe?
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:33:52 2020 No.11954346 >>11954135[0 -1; [0 -1;1 0] x 1 0] = -1 + 0 = -1
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:35:09 2020 No.11954352 >>11954344complex numbers have a physical correspondence in every vibrating phenomenon you can think of the real displacement and the imaginary displacement (as momentum)
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:35:23 2020 No.11954354 >>11954084You need to be 18 to post here.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:37:09 2020 No.11954360 >>11954352Yes, so even the idea that complex numbers don't have a physical correspondence doesn't work.So why do brainlets seethe at the imaginary unit? What is the underlying philosophical motivation to reject the complex field?
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:39:19 2020 No.11954372 >>11954360desu it's the namethey usually have no issue with the reals, when there is plenty of issues with the real numbers and that's why it took so long to develop them
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:39:56 2020 No.11954373 >>11954372>getting filtered by a namepretty sad anon. I feel sad for them
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:45:02 2020 No.11954386 >>11954331The riemann sphere is metal as phuck
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:56:15 2020 No.11954410 >>11954323Thank goodness i is a complex number.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 16:08:32 2020 No.11954457 >>11954410you cant just make up numbers at whim. that's magical thinking. not rigorous mathematics
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 16:11:35 2020 No.11954466 >>11954457I can and will. I just invented a number that made your mum a man.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 16:13:58 2020 No.11954471 >>11954457>not rigorous mathematicshow is it not rigorousI can make 1/2 from the integers by taking the Quotient Ring Z[x}/(2x - 1)I can make i from the integers by taking the Quotient Ring Z[x]/(x^2 - 1)I can make i also from the reals by taking R[x]/(x^2 - 1)
 >> El Arcón Thu Jul 30 16:21:35 2020 No.11954492 >>11954255you really are getting it wrong a lot calling me an imposter so much lately.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 16:21:36 2020 No.11954493 >>11954457It is rigorous. Read up on ring theory and injecting elements into the set via quotient rings and identifying elements with the first isomorphism theorem.Someone will say “wahhh it’s really the solution to x^2 - 1 = 0” but we can rigorously identify this this by adjoining an element which has the same properties as though x = sqrt( -1 )
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 16:24:03 2020 No.11954498 File: 56 KB, 1172x659, yes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11954328>do you think a continuous line infinite in both directions but infinite also in its microscopic scale exists? See picture.There are no limits in space. Also no smallest possible lenght over zero. Planck's lenght is just a result from dimensional analysis of physical constants and only a popscientist claim it as smallest possible lenght.
 >> le acorn no1 fan Thu Jul 30 16:26:23 2020 No.11954504 >>11954492that was you? why would you tell someone to take their meds?
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 16:30:03 2020 No.11954513 File: 58 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault (16).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11954262If i2 = -1, then √i2 = √-1, so i = √-1
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 16:37:05 2020 No.11954551 >>11954360>Yes, so even the idea that complex numbers don't have a physical correspondence doesn't work.Well it works. Just lazy fuckers use complex numbers as a result or start problem with it. Complex numbers are just a helpful tool and brainlets thinks they have some physical or even mathematical significance.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 16:54:20 2020 No.11954611 >>11954492>>11954504it's not him, and i'm a different anon who also called out the obvious imposter acorn in a different thread last night. acorn seems to have a high verbal iq, it's obvious to anyone who has read a lot. the imposter acorn(s) use comparatively bland language. the only other possibility is that acorn has multiple personalities and some of them have lower verbal iqs than others
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 16:57:26 2020 No.11954627 File: 21 KB, 581x538, dl7NZtldJXQ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>11954084It is.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 17:08:05 2020 No.11954664 >>11954627no, i has a length of 1. the hypotenuse is √2
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 17:22:57 2020 No.11954706 You will love quaternions.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 17:29:41 2020 No.11954735 >>11954551LITERAL FUCKING RETARD
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 17:30:00 2020 No.11954738 >>11954664>i has a length of 1so what, if i^2≡−1
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 17:32:44 2020 No.11954751 >>11954738so the jpg is wrong
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 17:34:53 2020 No.11954759 >|x| = -1 has no solutionsounds familiar
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 17:35:50 2020 No.11954762 >>11954513If i =sqrt(-1) then i*i=sqrt(-1*-1)=sqrt(1)=1, so i=1, so 1=sqrt(-1), so sqrt(-1)=-1. But sqrt(-1)=i and we deduced i=1, and we now have - 1=1.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 17:49:41 2020 No.11954806 >>11954125but math *is* making stuff up
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 17:51:38 2020 No.11954815 >>11954751How is it wrong when it shows that > i has a length of 1
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 17:53:38 2020 No.11954821 >>11954806He’s trying to imply it’s arbitrary and not rigorous. Neither of these are the case.Notice how none of these naysayers respond to the posts about ring theory and adjoining elements. They’re either shitposting or literal highschool knowledge brainlets who reee at stuff they don’t understand
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 17:54:50 2020 No.11954825 >>11954276>Not really, just a coincidence that some complex numbers are similar to rotational matrices.>just a coincidence
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 17:54:56 2020 No.11954826 >>11954627To extend the Pythagorean theorem, which is defined for nonnegative side lengths, you have to use the usual inner product with the complex conjugate to get “length,” which would then be i(-i) = 1
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 17:55:15 2020 No.11954827 >>119548151^2 + 1^2 ≠ 0^21^2 + 1^2 = √2^2
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 17:56:41 2020 No.11954829 >>11954762>i =sqrt(-1) then i*i=sqrt(-1*-1)=sqrt(1)=1non sequitur
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 17:57:25 2020 No.11954834 >>11954276>Only as helpful tool in the middle of calculations. Physics problems should start with real numbers only. Also solutions should be given with real numbers only. Want to describe rotation in 2D? Use 2D vectors and possibly 2x2 real matrices.This is why people make fun of physishits. Smarter than engineers but not as useful, and yet not nearly as informed or smart as people who actually know the math.Complex numbers are well defined as their own “canonical structure” in math, useful in many other contexts other than physics, and are interesting in their own right as a pure object.You guys don’t even know what you don’t understand but act like you do lmao
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 17:57:27 2020 No.11954835 you'd think this is horeshit until you understand its applications with electric shit. i've heard electrical engineers deal with this nonsense constantly
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:00:45 2020 No.11954839 >>11954835>I’ve heard You sound like a highschoolerWhat is so mystical about the complex numbers that they sound like “bullshit?”
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:05:56 2020 No.11954853 >>11954839on a surface level, if you have no clue what practical applications there are, the entire concept seems like a waste of timei'm not saying it is, but i remember doing things with imaginary numbers way before i knew what the fuck they were used for
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:07:50 2020 No.11954856 >>11954827I thought i^2 = -1
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:09:10 2020 No.11954860 >>11954829um no sweaty it proves that i*i is both 1 and -1 which is a proof by contradiction that i doesn't work
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:10:09 2020 No.11954866 >>11954627The Pic That Saved /sci/
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:10:12 2020 No.11954867 >>11954856i thought we agreed that the length of i is 1
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:12:38 2020 No.11954872 >>11954867i^2 isn't the length of i
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:13:45 2020 No.11954877 >>11954735>>11954834You are just wrong. You make yourselves clowns by claiming complex numbers are something more than they actually are.>and are interesting in their own right as a pure object.No absolutely no. Only to serve real science. Yes its good you mathfags have problems with complex numbers so we real scientists can use these results in the middle of our calculations to help them.But real scientists start and end with real numbers.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:16:34 2020 No.11954883 >>11954860prove sqrt(a*b) = sqrt(a)*sqrt(b)
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:17:00 2020 No.11954884 >>11954872correct
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:17:52 2020 No.11954885 >>11954867Is it so convenient that you i can equal 1 when you want it to or there's some rule when exactly √-1 equals 1?
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:18:44 2020 No.11954888 >>11954883no u
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:19:52 2020 No.11954889 >>11954885length, i goes up length 1
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:21:07 2020 No.11954892 >>11954888I can't prove something which isn't true. I can give you a nice counter example though, wanna see it ?
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:22:53 2020 No.11954895 >>11954826I'm sorry, kid, but it looks like a pilpul to me.I know your tribe have corrupted linguistics and physics. So excuse my belief that you've also corrupted math (here and in ramanujan summations)
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:23:40 2020 No.11954896 >>11954892sure
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:23:56 2020 No.11954901 >>11954889why not length i?also did you just pull it out of your ass or there are actually books which are saying just that?
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:25:35 2020 No.11954906 >>11954895ignore fancy words, if you draw a line from 0 to i the length is 1
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:26:09 2020 No.11954908 >>11954896sqrt(-1)*sqrt(-1) = i*i = -1 butsqrt(-1*-1) = sqrt(1) = 1
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:26:37 2020 No.11954909
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:27:16 2020 No.11954910 >>11954906how do we know that?
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:27:38 2020 No.11954911 >>11954908prove it
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:28:41 2020 No.11954912 >>11954910because it's a line segment connecting the points (0,0) and (0,1) ?
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:29:08 2020 No.11954913 >>11954910just look at a graph of i
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:30:27 2020 No.11954918 >>11954912>>11954913so how is i ≠ 1?
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:33:15 2020 No.11954925 >>11954911sqrt(-1) = i by definition of sqrt in complex numbersi*i = -1 by definition of i-1*-1 = 1 since both 1 and -1*-1 are additive inverses to -1, therefore they're equalsqrt(1) = 1 again by definition of sqrt in complex numbers
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:33:24 2020 No.11954926 >>11954918i goes up, 1 goes right
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:35:30 2020 No.11954934 >>11954918why should it be 1 ?
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:36:17 2020 No.11954936 >>11954926so does y>>11954934because otherwise we have a contradiction.
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:36:46 2020 No.11954939 >>11954936>because otherwise we have a contradiction.what contradiction
 >> Anonymous Thu Jul 30 18:37:07 2020 No.11954941 >>11954936>so does yi agree
>>