[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 17 KB, 581x538, 1582882305145.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12150301 No.12150301 [Reply] [Original]

So what's the scientific consensus on the imaginary length?

>> No.12150308

>>12150301
Bump, I also want to know

>> No.12150313

>>12150301
It’s a mathematical abstraction used to make some minkowski space calculations easier.

>> No.12150317

conjugation

z = a + i b

|z|^2 = z z* = [a + i b][a - i b] = a^2 + b^2

>> No.12150323

unfortunately, OP, your image disproves the entirety of complex analysis and much of physics as we have come to know it.
top scientists and mathematicians have been essentially rewriting the scope of the field to account for this glaring error, but it's taking some time.

>> No.12150324

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time

To understand length look at time

>> No.12150325

>>12150301
the consensus is that you just made it up and the fact that nothing like this is taught is soft evidence that thinking about it doesn't lead to much

>> No.12150346

>>12150301
Brainlet here, how could the hypotenuse possibly be smaller than either side?

>> No.12150360

>>12150346
It’s not in a Euclidean space so your intuitions don’t apply. The diagram in the image is just a 1:1:sqrt(2) triangle but refers to a more abstract “shape”.

>> No.12150362

>>12150301
Adding real and imaginary numbers together is probably peak brainlet though. Congrats

>> No.12150382

>>12150301
>imaginary length?
we dont even have negative length, why would we have imaginary length?

>> No.12150385

>>12150360
I think I understand.

>> No.12150447

>>12150301
Why do you want to know the scientific consensus on something mathematical?
Also, I suggest you read rudins construction of the complex field, very eye clarifying.

>> No.12150468

>>12150447
Sorry, had a mental lapse, very eye opening not eye clarifying lmao

>> No.12150556

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_divisor

>> No.12150570

>>12150382
Negative numbers are nonsense. You don't have "negative money", you have debt and you don't have "negative length", you just go back.

>> No.12150580

>>12150570
>you just go back.
take your own advice

>> No.12150658

>>12150323
No dumbass, imaginary numbers are only used in intermediate steps. Not the final answer.

>> No.12150703

>>12150301
I think the zero length side makes it irrelevant since all you've done is invent a line segment.

>> No.12151045

>>12150580
You can go i steps away.

>> No.12151299

>>12150301
>So what's the scientific consensus on the imaginary length?
science has no good say on mathematics
either way you're dumb and don't understand inner product spaces or what the complex plane actually represents, much less its formal construction.

>> No.12151304

>>12150323
no it doesn't. you can't extend pythagorean theorem onto a complex plane without first reconciling how to metrize in an analogous fashion. It's clear that as a vector space, (i, 0) or (i, 0) and any similar points are unit vectors

>> No.12151788

>>12150301
the red line should be a unit vector, same with the green line.
this gives the blue line to be sqrt(2) geometrically.
/sci/ are retards.

>> No.12151827
File: 41 KB, 680x658, 1600844838552.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12151827

>>12150360
Based, not calling us retards retards and actually helping us learn

>> No.12151893

>>12150301
What happens if you travel faster than imaginary speed?

>> No.12152270
File: 18 KB, 581x538, 1575396160700.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12152270

>>12151893
y-you go backwards?

>> No.12152305

>>12151893
>faster
>implying complex numbers are ordered