/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12836719

44KiB, 1200x900, how-to-use-complex-numbers.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Maths, Philosophy

Complex Thinking Mon 15 Mar 16:43:41 2021 No.12836719 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12836742 >>12836746 >>12836755 >>12836886 >>12837368 >>12837434 >>12837506 >>12837513

>be me
>likes maths way too much
>getting philosophical at times
>randomly thinking about reality and suddenly realising that the real number set is included in the complex number set and that our reality is included in a more complex "world".

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 16:46:21 No.12836726 Report

Quoted By:

Non sequitir

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 16:50:08 No.12836742 Report

Quoted By: >>12836856

>>12836719
Why is "imaginary" given its own swatch, but there's no place for algebraic numbers
Also >real

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 16:51:14 No.12836746 Report

Quoted By:

>>12836719
>our reality
1- there is no we. stop being such a secular rationalist

2- it's delusional to cling to your fantasy that mathematics is about reality

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 16:52:36 No.12836750 Report

Quoted By: >>12837472

holy shit this is the most childish post i’ve ever seen, i don’t even think it’s bait

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 16:53:13 No.12836755 Report

Quoted By:

>>12836719
cool blog post

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 17:16:32 No.12836856 Report

Quoted By: >>12836871 >>12837396

>>12836742
Where would you place algebraic numbers? You could fit the real algebraic numbers there but not the whole bunch.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 17:20:36 No.12836871 Report

Quoted By:

>>12836856
I dunno, why do mathematicians prefer constructing the reals before algebraic closure?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 17:23:56 No.12836886 Report

Quoted By:

>>12836719
A more suitable name for the "real" numbers is Stevin numbers. Read on Descartes' distinctinction between real and imaginary quantities, to clarify your philosohpical misunderstanding.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 18:54:39 No.12837368 Report

Quoted By:

>>12836719
>Maths
Fucking Europisser.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 18:58:50 No.12837396 Report

Quoted By:

>>12836856
irrational is a stupid term. we don't talk about ir-integers---real numbers that aren't integers. just eliminate the faggy irrational bubble, add a superset of algebraic (which all rational numbers are) and then the complement space of that is the transcendentals

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Number Systems.png, 14KiB, 1078x584

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 19:04:26 No.12837423 Report

Quoted By: >>12837439

here OP, I fixed your image.
A is the set of algebraic numbers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 19:07:34 No.12837434 Report

Quoted By:

>>12836719
Math doesn't represent reality, nigger.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 19:08:21 No.12837439 Report

Quoted By: >>12837455

>>12837423
Why isn't the solution to x^2 + 1 algebraic

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 19:11:08 No.12837455 Report

Quoted By: >>12837480 >>12837488

>>12837439
i find that definition of algebraic problematic. why construct polynomials of only rational coefficients, and not complex coefficients of the form (a + bi) where a and b are both rational? algebraic is admittedly arbitrary, i've just always been bothered at that definition

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 19:13:46 No.12837472 Report

Quoted By:

>>12836750
>most childist post i've ever seen
then it's a really good one

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 19:14:54 No.12837480 Report

Quoted By: >>12837501

>>12837455
Because polynomials with rational coefficients can always be converted to polynomials with integer coefficients
But when you algebraically close the rationals (i.e., construct the algebraic numbers), of course you admit polynomials with complex coefficients, otherwise it wouldn't be closed

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 19:15:54 No.12837488 Report

Quoted By: >>12837501

>>12837455
The definition of the algebraic numbers is that they form the algebraic closure of the rational numbers. They're hardly arbitrary.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Number Systems.png, 12KiB, 1078x584

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 19:18:42 No.12837501 Report

Quoted By: >>12837535

>>12837480
>>12837488
fair enough

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 19:19:27 No.12837506 Report

Quoted By:

>>12836719
"Real" and "complex" are just names. They don't correspond to "reality" and "complexity" in the usual sense. There are negative real numbers, but you can't have a negative amount of something in reality. Complex and "imaginary" numbers have applications in the real world, like in modeling waves, no "more complex world" necessary. Also, irrational numbers aren't usually given their own set, and the diagram implies that there are real numbers which are neither rational nor irrational, which is obviously false.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 19:20:43 No.12837513 Report

Quoted By:

>>12836719
And at the same time n(R)=n(C)

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 19:25:29 No.12837535 Report

Quoted By:

>>12837501
Now it looks like the reals are a disconnected subset of the complex numbers.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches