/sci/ - Science & Math

Also complex numbers are dumb as well. That's just a coordinate system on a Cartesian plane.

ah yes the mathlet is trying to dictate maths to everyone again

>>14661330
>>14661327
Complex numbers are incredibly important for transformations of higher dimensions. I can’t believe you faggots got filtered before getting to quaternions and octonions.

>>14661327
There are no real numbers. Imaginary numbers were created to make sure all n degree polynomials had n solutions.

Turns out, complex numbers are very useful for modeling all sorts of systems, though this was a secondary concern.

>>14661327
How do you describe the difference between a stationary cake, and a cake being brought to a table by a waiter zigging and zagging lifting the cake up and down between people and tables?

Who the fuck thought of this stupid concept? It doesn't even exist in the real world. You can have 1 cakes, you can have infinite cakes, you can 3/5s of a cake, you can have exactly pi cakes, you can owe someone 99 cakes. But you cannot ever have -1 cake.

>>14661330
Complex numbers are not just a coordinate system, you highschool pleb.

>>14661327
>math
>It doesn't even exist in the real world
Oh no guys. We've got a big brain thinking tinker smart boy here. We have to put a stop to him before he figures out that the sun rises in the morning and things fall when you drop them.

>>14661340
This is all covered by Clifford algebras. You wouldn't call a spinor a "number", would you?

>>14661327
Lines and circles don't exist in the real world either. Nor do irrational and transcendental numbers.

>>14661342
>Imaginary numbers were created to make sure all n degree polynomials had n solutions.
You cannot solve for real roots in certain cubic equations without imaginary numbers. They were created to solve cubic equations.

>It doesn't even exist in the real world.
Imaginary numbers are how your electricity gets rotated. They absolutely exist in the real world.

>>14661327
>rotation by 90 degrees is a stupid concept

>>14661327
>Who the fuck thought of this
16th century, you should try to catch up
https://youtu.be/_qvp9a1x2UM?t=2m30s

>>14661327
>you can have exactly pi cakes
nobody tell him
>>14661340
octonions aren't even a group and just exist for the memes

>>14661986
Really, it's not the worst way to think about them.

You can think of complex numbers as allowing us to talk about the two-dimensional plane using only a "single" 'z'-variable. In a kind of hand-wavy Kolmogorov-complexity minimising sense.

>>14662118
octonions are the last one to have a division algebra
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNxhIPHaOTRZMO1VjJcs7_3dgyJ2qU1yZ

It was a quick helper to solve 3rd degree polynomials.

I regard it a helper numbers even now. Complex numbers as a result or initial value makes no sense in real world. But if these numbers easy the calculations, so be it.

>>14662035
No they don't, faggot. Its just that identity
Re(exp(ix))=cos(x) helps in calculations

>>14662191
they make sense as planar transformations

>>14661327
This thread will die now.
Anon needs to read a bit more than his high-school curriculum only then he'll be allowed to have an opinion and challenge them in a rigorous and very thoughtful way. We need to dust off /sci/ of low effort posts and angry high school rants.
>this is stupid
We know this is the least intelligent way to challenge a concept. Go read a book anon.

>>14662035
There are enough books explaining the laws of electricity just with phase differences and rotations without ever having to mention "imaginary numbers". You're literally a brainlet if you cannot distinguish between a mathematical model and the laws it describes.

>>14662194
But then they would be 2x2 real matrices, not single real entities.

>>14662227
does anyone dispute that complex numbers can be defined as certain 2x2 real matrices? does anyone claim that complex numbers are "single real entities"?

>>14662230
here is your voltage bro:
[110/sqrt(2) -110/sqrt(2); 110/sqrt(2) 110/sqrt(2) ]

isnt science weird nobody knows why it works but it just work! science is full of mysteries, god doesnt exist!

>>14662242
Voltage is real quantity, not a complex number. My socket has 220 V, not 1+3i V

>>14662248
Ask another opinion from an EE you get surpriced.

>>14662250
It's just a difference in electrical potential.

>>14662242
>>14662248
>>14662250
You only need complex numbers when you need to encode the phase shift of currents and voltages. Nobody disputes that the magnitude of the voltage is the RMS value and not actually a complex quantity.

>>14662324
You don't "need" complex numbers at all. The same information can be encoded in different mathematical formulations.

>>14661327
ya can't have -1 cakes either. if you say "debt" then i'd like to point out that debt is as real as ownership and imaginary numbers -- a mental or spiritual construct.

>>14662339
Yes, you are never forced to use complex numbers to solve linear circuits. But you can and it makes it easier to do by hand.

Imaginary numbers just makes it much easier to express stuff like waves and electronic signals

You could just do everything with algebra, but it would be very tedious

>>14661327
imaginary numbers are the precursor to understanding x/y axis plotting.

the concept translates well enough through just plotting 2d points.

or maybe 2d was already understood but some other knuckle dragging idiot wanted to attempt encapsulating the concept on a single axis number line because room temperature iq

>>14662339
>the same information can be encoded in different mathematical formulations.
such as?

>>14662382
>imaginary numbers are the precursor to understanding x/y axis plotting.
Excuse me?

>>14662382
Is this bait?

>>14662734
I think this is the same guy who has been schizoposting about physics for the past weeks with his characteristic reddit spacing.

>>14662775
Mandlbaur?

>>14662789
Nah, not him. I meant the who spams threads relating to electricity or particles. That guy who's constantly arguing whether electrons are waves or not.

>>14662799
Oh, this idiot. Yeah, how come the electric field moves out of the way? And how come, gravity and electric field share the same space? Shouldn't be they alternating? Or is it gravity, gravity, em, em, etc?
Although I think of him more like little Pepe. Not completely schizo, but a very curious brainlet

And that's why children shut up before they take a course in geometric algebra

>>14661327
if the root of a negative number existing bothers you for some reason just replace every instance of it with [math] \begin{bmatrix}
0 & -1\\
1&0
\end{bmatrix}[/math] and nothing will change, the "root of -1" part is just more convenient

>>14662799
He's back:
>>14663000
>>14662984

>>14662338
-1 cake is when a cake is eaten.

+1 you have a cake
-1 you eat the cake
= 0 cake left

>>14662339
>>14662356
The biggest problem with imaginary numbers is they are called imaginary numbers, thats it.

Should have called them time dependent y axis numbers, or Z numbers or something, noone would have a problem?

>>14662686
cos(x)

>>14661987
The internet is serious business.

>>14663104
there are no negative numbers involved in that.
There's subtraction, sure, but you're not subtracting from 0. You can't have less than nothing in the real world.
1 cake - 1 cake = 0 cakes. no negative numbers

>>14665485
> -1 cake
> no negative numbers involved

No numbers physically exist. A debt or deficit of something is just as real a quantity as a physical collection of some objects with count n.

The confusion comes from an abuse of notation. You can just as well use distance and position rather than +/- and i if it makes you feel better but it won't be convenient

>>14665496
motherfucker i already explained what a negative number is.

1 - 1 doesn't imply negative numbers. you can have subtraction in a completely positive system, because there's no requirement that all operations can or should be isolated and applied to 0.

think of -1 as notation for 0-1. in 3 - 2, it's SUBTRCTION. saying that implies negative numbers is the same as saying 3/2 implies dividing by 0. it's nonsense.

>>14662217
Counterpoint: Numbers conveniently slotting into a description of real shit people deal with every fucking day is about as close to existing as any get.

And the description for electricity is simple as fuck if you add imaginary numbers.

>>14661990
There is no difference between Clifford algebras and complex numbers. In fact the latter is one particular instance of the former.

>>14661327
>how dare imaginary numbers not exist!!!1!!

>>14665952
this

>>14661359

>>14665903
Are imaginary numbers just y-axis numbers?

You can talk about x axis and y-axis numbers without denotation. 5 and 3 and 2 and 8 and 33 and 83, which ones were I referring to on x axis and which on y?
So you need a symbol label to denote x and y-axis?

Or there is a more intimate specific rule about the tightly connected rotation aspect, where imaginary is never just freely floating and existing, but always tightly in relation to a specific function on an x axis number?

>>14661327
i found a bug in math using this number. i think it bugged math and must stop existing (well its imaginary ...)