>>14423987>Clearly I'm not a native englisman how did you know...not an indian neither, buy perhaps my boss will be, fuck.That explains a lot. Well, I'll try to explain what I mean then.
>Are you saying not all linear transforms need to be real valued element wise?No. Think about it this way: Are operations such as addition or substraction real (and by "real" I mean existing objectively)?
For example, is 3 + 5 a real operation? I'd argue that it is a real operation.
Your demand analogically becomes a bit absurd. If you said "Addition isn't real because no physics question result is an addition!", then that just seems like dubious logic. Clearly, I can add a liter of milk to another liter of milk to get two liters.
Likewise, linear transformations are essentially operations that we perform onto vectors. These operations are real, even if no physics question has them as results. A complex number is essentially a convenient notation that describes a specific kind of linear transformation, namely a rotation and scaling. And obviously, we can scale and rotate objects in reality, so it's not a surprise then that we see complex numbers used everywhere in physics.
