Originally posted by @deepthought Observable physical quantities are required to be real, yes. Imaginary numbers are useful for describing phases, so there are plenty of applications in electronics and physics, but one always finishes the calculation by taking the real part or finding the magnitude of the complex quantity.
I did not say that they do not have applications. I said that they are not the result of simple squating and that they do not apply to distances.
If we limit to real numbers, the inverse of the square function is simply a relation, not a function.
Originally posted by @eladar I did not say that they do not have applications. I said that they are not the result of simple squating and that they do not apply to distances.
If we limit to real numbers, the inverse of the square function is simply a relation, not a function.
No matter what, the inverse of squaring is simply a relation not a function.
Originally posted by @sonhouse I think the square root of minus one, i is not false, it is a definition.
It must be treated separate and distinct from the real coefficient on the i.
Square root of -8 times the square root of -2 must be calculate as i squ root 8 times i squ root 2. If you simply calculaye -8×-2 =16 you would get the wrong answer. Instead the i's need to be combined separately and calculating 8×2.
But as I pointed out, the i discussion is irrelevant to my point.
No amount of i's will help you make the inverse of the square function into a function.
Originally posted by @eladar It must be treated separate and distinct from the real coefficient on the i.
Square root of -8 times the square root of -2 must be calculate as i squ root 8 times i squ root 2. If you simply calculaye -8×-2 =16 you would get the wrong answer. Instead the i's need to be combined separately and calculating 8×2.
But as I pointed out, the i discussion i ...[text shortened]... oint.
No amount of i's will help you make the inverse of the square function into a function.
All this i stuff is a rabbit trail created by confusing a negative square root with the fact that a negative number becomes positive when squared.
Mistakes like this are common among people who don't really understand what they are talking about, but have a vague recollection of stuff they did once.
Originally posted by @eladar I is imaginary, which does not exist under the real numbers.
Try graphing the square root function to see what I am trying to explain.
Or imagine the grapg of y=x^2. To find its inverse you need to turn that function 90 degrees clockwise then reflect it anout the x axis. Since a parabola is symmetric, the relecting does nothing. It results in a parab ...[text shortened]... egative, then you should understand that you can only take square roots of non negative numbers.
Yes, of course it is 'imaginary' because it is called so. Of course you can imagine i! If you cannot, then you have to go back to the math book again to learn what it is.
The imaginary numbers are as real as any other number, don't mix your strange religion into it. Scientists use it every day in the most diverse branches.
Can you or can't you solve the equation x^2 = -1 ?
Originally posted by @fabianfnas Yes, of course it is 'imaginary' because it is called so. Of course you can imagine i! If you cannot, then you have to go back to the math book again to learn what it is.
The imaginary numbers are as real as any other number, don't mix your strange religion into it. Scientists use it every day in the most diverse branches.
Can you or can't you solve the equation x^2 = -1 ?
Real numbers is a name of a set of numbers.
Perhaps what you need is a lesson on number sets.
Real numbers are made up of two sets of numbers, rational and irrational. Rationals contain the subsets of numbers called integers, whole numbers and natural numbers. Sometimes natural numbers are called counting numbers.
why does (g^2 – 1)/(g – 1) = g + 1 ?
24 Sep '17 14:27
Back to Top