[ 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: 100 KB, 565x561, Screenshot_19.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8865012 No.8865012 [Reply] [Original]

Are IMAGINARY numbers real?

>> No.8865023

They aren't a quantity if that's what you're asking. They are exclusively used in geometry as an alternative to cartesian coordinates whenever it's more convenient.

>> No.8865024

>>8865012

Not a single number is real.

Points are not real.

Lines are not real.

Planes are not real.

Cubes are not real

Geometrical forms are not real

You won't find anything real from maths besides being so called. Which doesn't make a thing real, as everybody knows.

>> No.8865028

>>8865023

Every statement in this post is wrong. Every single one.

>> No.8865033

>>8865012
You can construct an isomorphism between imaginaries and reals, so, yeah, they are the same

>> No.8865037

No, they are imaginary

>> No.8865040

>>8865033
not when considering rings.

>> No.8865043

>>8865040
Yes you can. Literally just a --> ia.

>> No.8865072

>>8865043
listen, brainlet,you need to learn more about isomorphisms. bijections aren't enough.

>> No.8865085

>>8865072
That is an isomorphism.

>> No.8865090

>>8865012

No numbers are "real", they're all just tools we create to help us do math.

>> No.8865091

>>8865085
>what is a homomorphism

>> No.8865094

>>8865043
this map isn't even surjective

>> No.8865097

>>8865091
We must be defining multiplication differently. The set of imaginary numbers is not closed under the usual multiplication and thus not a ring under that multiplication.

>> No.8865151

>>8865094
It's over the imaginary numbers.

>> No.8865164

>>8865097
This, and if you define multiplication on the imaginary line as: a*b=a•b(-i)

>> No.8865270
File: 116 KB, 724x897, 1477250816474.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8865270

I was going to call everyone ITT autistic then I realized I don't know what "real" number is supposed to mean either.

>> No.8865278

>>8865012
This whole stupid thread is constructed around the extremely ambiguous concept of "real". In the background lurks shitty old Plato. Get over your ancient misconceptions, you flatulent chan-tards.

>> No.8865337

>>8865040
was thinking that the bijection just needed to preserve distance for it to be a isomorphism.
This discussion has slightly helped my understanding.

>> No.8865367

>>8865337
That is an isometry, but to be fair sometimes isometries can be defined a distance preserving topological isomorphisms.

>> No.8865663

>>8865012
As a math teacher, I always convince my students this way

Can you show me negative apples?

Of course not, yet, we use negative numbers in grade school math, and life could not be possible without them.

Likewise, we cannot demonstrate i things, and yet we accept complex numbers as a fantastic way to solve certain operations.

>> No.8865732
File: 116 KB, 900x900, photo[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8865732

>>8865012
By definition, no.

But then again the reals don't exist anyway, nor do large numbers. Circles that overlap do not necessarily intersect.

Am I being profound yet?

>> No.8865737

>>8865663
Why not just tell your students that complex numbers are a way of writing coordinates that have some unique advantages?

>> No.8865751

>>8865663
Why not just tell your students the complex numbers are the unique (up to fld. ext. iso.) algebraic closure of the real numbers?

>> No.8865762

>>8865663
Why not just tell your students to shut the fuck up and study for the test or they're going to be garbage collectors for the rest of their lives?

>> No.8865777

>>8865663
Why not just tell your students that math is a meme and supposed to be satire like most other memes?

>> No.8865780

>>8865663
why not tell your students what they actually are?
do you not know what they are, even as a school teacher? please tell me you aren't in my kids school district...

>> No.8865782
File: 8 KB, 225x225, p.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8865782

>>8865012

Yes because it works.

Math is not an invention.

>> No.8865826

>>8865028
I mean it was only 2 statements.

>> No.8865833

>>8865782
Sir Isaac netwad simply discovered calculus

>> No.8866111

>>8865024
what is it with amerilards and your shitty definitions of words

math is the objective truth derived from axioms. truth is real.

>> No.8866139

>>8865833
Did you mean Leibnitz, you filthy kike?

>> No.8866522
File: 55 KB, 369x365, 1405804796542.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8866522

>>8865012
Jews made them up.

>> No.8866587
File: 26 KB, 640x360, jewmega.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8866587

>>8866522

Suddenly all of it makes sense.

>> No.8866590

>>8865782
>math is not an invention.
Lol math is by its very definition an invention dude. its just stupid symbols to represent our world that we think are correct

>> No.8866612

>>8866139
jews are superior goy.

>> No.8866616

>>8866111
Prove truth is real then fuckwad. Then prove that that is real. Then take all your proofs and shove them up your ass.

>> No.8867072

>>8865012
Under addition they and the reals are isomorphic.

>> No.8867288

>>8865012
complex numbers are a 2D real manifold

>> No.8867641

>>8865777
trips of truth

>> No.8868210

>>8866616
if truth isn't real then what is real

q.e.d.

>> No.8868239

>>8865278
this

>> No.8868245

>>8865090
>tools we create
how can you create a tool which isn't real?

>> No.8868265

yes they're used in electrical fields. /thread.

>> No.8868274

>>8868245
You create it conceptually.

>> No.8868284
File: 74 KB, 463x372, le ideas guy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8868284

>>8868274

>> No.8868287
File: 687 KB, 1920x1080, 1435447811590.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8868287

>> No.8868550

>>8866616
>prove truth is real
truth is real by definition

>> No.8868572

>>8868245
It is real, it's just made up.

>> No.8868583

>>8865012
Numbers are not positive or negative, real or imaginary. Numbers are on a spectrum of positivity, negativity, realness, and imaginariness

>> No.8868588

>>8868265
This. Work in DSP can confirm. Also cool people denote as j.

>> No.8868839

>>8865043
you're a literal drooling retard

>> No.8868840

>>8865033
>[math]\mathbb{C}[/math] is algebraically closed
>[math]\mathbb{R}[/math] isn't
>b-but they're the same
>t-they're even i-i-isomorphic!
jesus fucking christ never post again

>> No.8868843

>>8865270
an element of [math]\mathbb{R}[/math]

>>8865663
>solve
>an operation
please don't teach them English

>> No.8868846

>>8868840
He said the imaginary numbers, not the complex numbers.

>> No.8868849

>>8868846
all imaginary things are de-facto complex
everything complex can not be real, since reality is apparent and therefore simple, and therefore must be imaginary

therefore, the imaginary and complex numbers are one and the same

quod erat demonstrandum

>> No.8868863

>>8868849
C = R + iR = reals + imaginaries

>> No.8868868 [DELETED] 

>>8868863
>C = R + iR
but anon, [math]\mathbb{R} + i\mathbb{R} = i\mathbb{R}[/math]
are you fucking retarded, anon-kun?

>> No.8869112

>>8865012
Nothing in Mathematics is real. Just like its philosophical basis, it's abstraction. Intangible. However within this abstraction, "Imaginary Numbers" aren't actual numbers, they are a different kind of abstraction to numbers. Just as 1/4 isn't actually 0.25, rather a representation of it, even though it equates to it. It's useful, so we use it. If it gets results that are applicable to the real world then who cares how strange or arbitrary the abstraction seems.

>> No.8869801

>>8865012
>j love math

I don't get it

>> No.8870069

>>8865012
No. They are imaginary. Only real numbers are real.

>> No.8870078

>>8865024
WHY STOP HERE,

YOUR THOUGHTS ARENT REAL

YOUR PERCETION OF REALITY ISNT REAL

LIFE ISNT REAL

>> No.8870973
File: 95 KB, 480x480, cant-tell-if-joking-or-genuinely-retarded.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8870973

>>8868863

>> No.8870977

>>8870078
One's thoughts and thus one's self are plainly real, but that is the limit in terms of certainty.

>> No.8870995

>>8870973
Literally the definition.

>> No.8871106

>>8870995
you clearly haven't taken analysis.

>> No.8871216

>>8870078
real isn't real

>> No.8871241

>>8871106
I have, not that it is relevant as it is an algebraic definition.

>> No.8871260

>>8865012
Nope.

>> No.8871289

>>8865012

By "real", do you mean if reality demonstrates patterns as predicted by the use of imaginary numbers? If so, yes. Vector rotations, AC currents, and fractals all exhibit the properties deduced by the use of complex numbers.

They call them imaginary numbers, but there's nothing imaginary about them. Calling them fake simply because they're counter-intuitive is almost as insulting as calling negative numbers fake because you can't ever find a tree with a negative number of apples growing on it. They're simply different tools used for different things. Negative numbers can be thought of as debts, and imaginary numbers can be thought of as rotations.

>> No.8871298
File: 644 KB, 1920x1200, 1448511659628.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8871298

>>8866587
underrated

>> No.8871306

>>8871216
REDPILL

>> No.8871323

>>8865024
Intangible != not real

>> No.8871717

>>8868245
Socrates pls.

>> No.8871724

>>8866587
>spectrums are a tool of the jew
Of course.
At this point I wouldn't even be surprised if they've found a way to corrupt set theory.

>> No.8871748
File: 23 KB, 418x405, 1490989122510-fa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8871748

>>8868550
Truth isn't real

>> No.8872312
File: 29 KB, 629x354, image_e9207171.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8872312

>>8865024
>Planes are not real
Explain this

>> No.8872371

>>8872312
that's a fictional character, anon.