>>14327894>I'm talking about the fact that mathematicians createddiscovered*
> an imaginary number i2=?1i2=?1 As you correctly pointed out yourself in the OP the proper modern terminology is complex number since imaginary precisely has the incorrect connotation you are pointing out, but in fact, is simply understood today as a kind of rotation adjoined to real numbers useful for computing oscillations among other things.
>which defies previous logic, Yes, but so did irrational numbers before that and rational numbers before that. Before the complex number system we had to adjoin the irrational numbers to the rational number system to find the real number system that you are familiar with today. It is important to study these number systems independently such as we do in modern group theory. These all fall within the field of modern mathematics so I am not sure how you conclude that "math is flawed" from this.
>yet this number (symbol) is essential in solving real-life problems.Let's be clear, only the PID controller is "essential" for solving virtually all "real-life" problems. We can be more precise in the abstractions we use, we can be more accurate and we can represent abstractions more elegantly. But at the end of the day math is a discipline that studies Platonic truths that would exist without us. Just like a finely tuned PID would still keep a water tank level even if we didn't understand the details. It does not have to have an epistemological justificiation since the discipline is independent of physical reality. Our own ignorance does not play a rule, the truth will always exist without us.
