/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9675175]

imaginary numbers - utterly useless

[Anonymous No.9675179]

real numbers are an absolute fraud

[Anonymous No.9675189]

>>9675175
t. brainlet

[Anonymous No.9675215]

Welcome back to the Seventeenth Century, Anon.
Now solve [math]x^3-6x^2+13x-10=0[/math]

[Anonymous No.9675238]

>>9675175
20/10 bait

[Anonymous No.9675301]

>>9675215
>lol have fun finding these useless imaginary number solutions for this problem, goyim. It'll do you good with life skills.

[Anonymous No.9675311]

>>9675301
what is electrical engineering
weak beat 1/10 made me reply

[Anonymous No.9675333]

>>9675301
>us goys shouldn't waste our time with all this silly abstract math. Go get a nice office job somewhere and let Dr. Shekelstein down at the local university take care of it.

[Anonymous No.9675341]

>>9675175
>what imaginary numbers are used for

what is electrical engineering?

[Anonymous No.9675349]

>>9675311
>electrical engineering
>life skills
try again

[Anonymous No.9675350]

>>9675215
But that can be solved without complex numbers, anon... why not use an even-order polynomial to make your point?

[Anonymous No.9675362]

>>9675349
Without imaginary numbers and electrical engineering

There would be no Internet, Smartphones and Computers, or any other Electronic gadgets.

[Anonymous No.9675554]

>>9675215
>2

[Anonymous No.9675574]

>>9675215
if it has no solutions then that is a solution to the problem.

>>9675311
>>9675341
>>9675362
everything you use imaginary or "complex" numbers for you can use trigonometric functions or power series instead.

[Anonymous No.9675576]

>>9675574
>everything you use imaginary or "complex" numbers for you can use trigonometric functions or power series instead.
Pro tip: you can't

[Anonymous No.9675578]

>>9675576
No.

[Anonymous No.9675585]

>>9675576
>trig functions existed for centuries
>engineers: lel we'll use complex numbers instead because thats harder lel
imagine being this retarded

[Anonymous No.9675587]

>>9675585
sorry, meant >>9675578

[Anonymous No.9675593]

>>9675175
>imaginary numbers - utterly useless
>Ur mom gay

[Anonymous No.9675601]

>>9675175
without imaginary numbers, your smartphone, tv, car...
they would not have existed

[Anonymous No.9675664]

>>9675585
so now you're admitting that you can use power series and trig functions instead of complex numbers ,you're just backpeddling to claim that it is "harder".

hmmm. interesting.

[Barry b Benson No.9675670]

>>9675175
How can you represent a complex vector space without complex numbers?

[Anonymous No.9675842]

>>9675175
but then how would i solve

[math] y''+y = 0 [/math]?

[Anonymous No.9676771]

>>9675585
>harder
the whole point is to make it easier
go ahead and try to calculate something like maximum power output in an RLC circuit without any complex numbers

[Anonymous No.9676788]

>>9675175
but then how would you solve [math] x-i=0 [/math]?

[Anonymous No.9676857]

>>9675311
In EE, i is curre t. j is the default imaginary number. Of course this is simply convention. You could switch letters around if you wanted to be a dickhead.

[Anonymous No.9676907]

>>9676857
but I is current, not i

[Anonymous No.9677053]

What's with the increase of retarded clearly non STEM majors making threads here?

[Anonymous No.9677109]

>>9677053
>non-STEM major
>shitposting about imaginary numbers on the "Science and Maths" section of a Croatian Puppetry
Pick one. Only a stem major could be this autistic

[Anonymous No.9677115]

>>9675175
Try to describe electromagnetism interacting with conducting materials without it and I'll suck your dick.

[Anonymous No.9677270]

>>9675175

Anyone who thinks complex numbers are useless/bullshit just advertises to everyone when they stopped taking math.

[Anonymous No.9677315]

>>9675333
checked and truth

[Anonymous No.9677333]

>b-but imaginary numbers exist a-and are usefu-
*blocks your brainlet path*

[Anonymous No.9677379]

>>9677333
pythagorean theorem is specific to euclidean space, or at least the common definition is

you can generalize it from inner product spaces, where instead of a^2+b^2=c^2, we use |a|^2+|b|^2=|c|^2

the magnitude of a complex number z=a+bi is |z|=sqrt(a^2+b^2)

[Anonymous No.9677383]

>>9677379
>p-please use magnitudes and pretend that imaginary numbers dont exist because I said so or all math will break

Literally worse than dark matter

[Anonymous No.9677386]

>>9677383
>p-please use definitions generalized to euclidean space work with inner product spaces and pretend that complex numbers exist in the euclidean plane

literally as bad as the rest of /sci/

[Anonymous No.9677393]

>>9677333
>>9677379
>>9677383
>>9677386
stop arguing you fools, both of you are correct

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time
>Mathematically, imaginary time [math]\tau[/math] is obtained from real time [math]t[/math] via a Wick rotation by [math]π/2[/math] in the complex plane: [math]\tau = it[/math], where [math]i[/math] is the square root of minus one, [math]i = \sqrt{−1}[/math]

Both imaginary numbers and that triangle exist, just not in the way you think they should

[Anonymous No.9677401]

>>9677393
>if you rotate the triangle such that it ends up in the euclidean plane, the pythagorean theorem works
i mean, yeah that works too, but then you're not even dealing with complex numbers

[Anonymous No.9677458]

>>9675664
No he's not, retard. Lrn 2 read.

[Anonymous No.9677547]

>>9675215
x=2

[Anonymous No.9678017]

>>9675175
Working with complex numbers can sometimes lead to real solutions not otherwise attainable. That was enough to sufficiently convince me of their use. They're a quirk. A loophole in mathematical logic. They have no tangible presence but exist and operate perfectly within the system. As far as the system is concerned, there is no difference between working with real values versus non-real. It's really quite astonishing.

[Anonymous No.9678035]

>>9675175
something I've wondered is about the fact that by simply adding a way to find the roots of negative numbers is all that is needed to make the field algebraically closed

suppose there was another unary operator
f: R -> R that was not surjective, and suppose we tried to solve all equations that involved +, *, and f and found that not all equations can be solved (since f is not surjective) and so we created an algebraic object that represented a solution to such an equation, and then we developed the complex-f numbers which form the field closed under solutions to equations built using +, * and f.

[Anonymous No.9678065]

>>9677109
imaginary numbers are introduced in highschool and normies have been shown to have adverse reactions to it so its possible op is just some /v/irgin or something and shit posted this thread into the aether in an attempt to get an educated response to his bait

[Anonymous No.9678070]

>>9678065
not really
normies usually say that either about all of math or they dont at all

[Anonymous No.9678282]

lol looks like some1 is mad butthurt over failing complex analysis

[Anonymous No.9678317]

>>9678065
>in highschool
Not in Germany my friend.

[Anonymous No.9678336]

nobody has mentioned fourier and signal analysis yet

[Anonymous No.9678361]

>>9675842
First, reduce this homogeneous differential equation of order 2 to an equation of order 1 through the function
[eqn]\begin{array}[t]{cccl} Y: & \mathbf R & \longrightarrow & \mathscr M_{2,\,1} \left(\mathbf R\right) \\ & t & \longmapsto & \begin{pmatrix} y\left(t\right) \\ y'\left(t\right) \end{pmatrix} \end{array}.[/eqn]
The function [math]Y[/math] is differentiable over [math]\mathbf R[/math] and
[eqn]\forall t\,\in\,\mathbf R,\, Y'\left(t\right)\ =\ \begin{pmatrix} y'\left(t\right) \\ y''\left(t\right) \end{pmatrix}\ =\ \begin{pmatrix} y'\left(t\right) \\ -y\left(t\right) \end{pmatrix}\ =\ \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}\, \begin{pmatrix} y\left(t\right) \\ y'\left(t\right) \end{pmatrix}\ =\ \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}\, Y'\left(t\right).[/eqn]
This means that the set of all solutions to the equation is a 2-dimensional vector space over [math]\mathbf R[/math].

Because the set of solutions is 2-dimensional, finding two non-colinear solutions is enough. Consider [math]\sin[/math] and [math]\cos[/math]:
[eqn]\forall t\,\in\,\mathbf R,\, \begin{cases} \sin''\,t\,+\,\sin\,t\ =\ -\sin\,t\,+\,\sin\,t\ =\ 0 \\ \cos''\,t\,+\,\cos\,t\ =\ -\cos\,t\,+\,\cos\,t\ =\ 0 \end{cases}.[/eqn]
Therefore, any solution can be written under the form [math]\lambda\,\sin\,+\,\mu\,\cos[/math] for some [math] \left(\lambda,\,\mu\right) \,\in\, \mathbf R^2 [/math].

[Anonymous No.9678367]

>>9675215
a better example would be
x^3-6x^2+x+5

all roots are real
yet you can't exactly solve the middle one without using i

[Anonymous No.9678376]

>>9675301
>finding zeros in polynomial equations is useless
Here's your reply, you earned it

[Anonymous No.9678479]

>>9676907
i is AC current, I is DC current

[Anonymous No.9678489]

>>9678361
tl;dr: just solbve it by inspegtion :DDD

[Anonymous No.9678512]

>>9678479
I is DC, [math]\mathbf{I}[/math] or [math]\mathbf{\hat{I}}[/math] is AC

[Anonymous No.9678520]

>>9678361
stop jacking off

[Anonymous No.9678533]

>>9678361
>[math][ math ]forsome[ /math ][/math]
lmao look at this brainlet

[Anonymous No.9678829]

>>9675215

[Anonymous No.9678835]

>>9678829
>>9678367

[Anonymous No.9678847]

>>9678367
>what is bonnet-lagrange theorem

[Anonymous No.9678848]

>*blocks your path*

[Anonymous No.9678882]

>>9678533
>reeden gumprenjun

[Anonymous No.9678960]

negative numbers - utterly useless

[Anonymous No.9678966]

>>9678847
it's nothing