Originally posted by AcolyteHmm, I might sound facetious trying to argue this point with someone whith a much better grasp on maths (and seemingly science as a whole), but I still don't really agree. If you have zero displacement form a given point because you have sat at this point forever then negative numbers don't come into play and it does indeed make perfect sense. If you have zero displacement from a point because you moved x distance forwards then x distance back towards your original point on exactly the same line then the negative number comes into play. In mathematical terms, you have just walked a distance of x + (-x) giving zero displacement. In reality, you just walked the same distance in opposite directions. You didn't magically walk a "minus distance", to you it felt just the same as the other way around. The negative number is just a concept that is highly useful becasue it lets you do maths with the result. You can't grasp a negative number, its just a positive number in a different direction, in this sense. (this might actually be the entire point and I have just rendered my argument completely stupid!)
If you mean vector in a mathematical sense, ...[text shortened]..association with spatial-temporal direction.
PS The charge vector was a bit of a mistake, I'll give you that! (I'm only a chemist, my main intrests revolve around setting fire to things and solvent abuse 🙄)
Originally posted by corp1131You could just as easily say an electron has a charge of one, a proton of three and define 2 as the point of no overall charge, but as you pointed out, this would be silly.
But thats exactly his point. An electron doesn't have less than zero charge; it merely has a charge that is opposite in direction (well, it has a vector that represents the charge opposite in direction) to that of a proton. To say something has less than zero charge in the sense that a non-mathematical interpretation would imply is ludicrous; either some ...[text shortened]... d be silly. Negativity is a mathematical concept, it doesn't make sense in the 'real' world.
I don't think you could do this, because this would suggest two protons repel each other more strongly than two electrons. I think.
1 edit
Originally posted by iamatigerTrue, in 4 dimensions. But please don't drag this thread from the Land Of The Misguided over to Utter-Nonsenseville!
There is no need to assume i (with -i) is the one square root of -1, it is sometimes quite useful to assume there are more. 3 different roots i,j and k work together quite well - look up quaternions.
Originally posted by davegageWhere do you get 0.2 anything calculating (-pi/2)?
I am also intrigued by the number i. A good way to visualize any complex number A + Bi, where A and B are both real, is to set-up the 'complex plane' where A is plotted on the x-axis, and B is plotted on the y-axis. Then any point (A,B) on the complex plane corresponds to the complex number A + Bi. Additionally, if you draw a vector from the origin of ...[text shortened]... s actually purely real and is just exp(-Pi/2) = 0.2078795764....... Very peculiar results IMO.
I get minus 1.5707 and change. You have a minus number
being divided by a positive, that ends up being a negative number
every time according to MY book. And forgetting all that,
pi (old faithful 3.14159 etc.) divided by two seems to me to have
always been 1.570796327 etc.
Originally posted by Darius07
I suppose this is kind of off topic now the thread has gone in the direction which it has, but I found it strange that there are infact more irrational numbers than rational numbers that exist, for example, if you were to examine every number between 1 and 2 there would be more irrational numbers than rational ones.
I'm not great at maths (currently d ...[text shortened]... found this interesting, what do other people think? ... or is it just something thats obvious 😕
Technically, the number of rational and the number of irrational numbers between 1 and 2 are both infinite.
the form would be e^(-pi/2)= 0.2 etc.
Incidently, I put i^i in my little casio and it went "Ma error"
Math error. I have an HP48SX at work but not the manual, its at
home. I wanted to try it on that beast but can't find i, its not on
the front keys, prob. in back of a menu somewhere. Anyone familiar
with the 48? know where i is on it?
1 edit
Originally posted by jebryyes, but the number of perfect squares and the number of integers are both infinite, and we know that there are many more integers than perfect squares (especially since the perfect squares are a subset of integers)
Technically, the number of rational and the number of irrational numbers between 1 and 2 are both infinite.