Open Menu
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
lotide
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
Login

This feels wrong. I love it.

⁨410⁩ ⁨likes⁩

Submitted ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨hydroptic@sopuli.xyz⁩ to ⁨science_memes@mander.xyz⁩

https://sopuli.xyz/pictrs/image/325a81b6-9eec-4145-a4ca-65d0cd2dc425.webp

source

Comments

Sort:hotnewtop
  • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Imaginary numbers always feel wrong

    source
    • Enkers@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I never really appreciated them until watching a bunch of 3blue1brown videos. I really wish those had been available when I was still in HS.

      source
      • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        After watching a lot of Numberphile and 3B1B videos I said to myself, you know what, I’m going back to college to get a maths degree. I swim to actuarial sciences when applying, because it’s looked like a good professional move and was the best decision on my life.

        source
    • Klear@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      After delving into quaternions, complex numbers feel simple and intuitive.

      source
    • affiliate@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      after you spend enough time with complex numbers, the real numbers start to feel wrong

      source
      • TeddE@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Can we all at least agree that counting numbers are a joke? Sometimes they start at zero … sometimes they start at one …

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • bitcrafter@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      If you are comfortable with negative numbers, then you are already comfortable with the idea that a number can be tagged with an extra bit of information that represents a rotation. Complex numbers just generalize the choices available to you from 0 degrees and 180 degrees to arbitrary angles.

      source
  • blackbrook@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    You need to add some disclaimer to this diagram like “not to scale”…

    source
    • hydroptic@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      It’s to scale.

      Which scale is left as an exercise to the reader.

      source
      • jerkface@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        I really don’t think it is.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • puchaczyk@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    This is why a length of a vector on a complex plane is |z|=√(z×z). z is a complex conjugate of z.

    source
    • randy@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I’ve noticed that, if an equation calls for a number squared, they usually really mean a number multiplied by its complex conjugate.

      source
    • drbluefall@toast.ooo ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      [ you may want to escape the characters in your comment… ]

      source
  • ornery_chemist@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Isn’t the squaring actually multiplication by the complex conjugate when working in the complex plane? i.e., √((1 - 0 i) (1 + 0 i) + (0 - i) (0 + i)) = √(1 + - i^2^) = √(1 + 1) = √2. I could be totally off base here and could be confusing with something else…

    source
    • diaphanous@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I think you’re thinking of taking the absolute value squared, |z|^2 = z z*

      source
      • candybrie@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Considering we’re trying to find lengths, shouldn’t we be doing absolute value squared?

        source
    • HexesofVexes@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Almost:

      Lengths are usually reals, and in this case the diagram we can use assume that A is the origin wlog (badly drawn vectors without a direction)

      Next we convert the vectors into lengths using the abs function (root of conjugate multiplication). This gives us lengths of 1 for both.

      Finally, we can just use a Euclidean metric to get out other length √2.

      Squaring isn’t multiplication by complex conjugate, that’s just mapping a vector to a scalar (the complex | x | function).

      source
  • captainlezbian@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    It’s just dimensionally shifted. This is not only true, its truth is practical for electrical engineering purposes. Real and imaginary cartesians yay!

    source
  • owenfromcanada@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    This is pretty much the basis behind all math around electromagnetics (and probably other areas).

    source
    • A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Would you explain how, for a simpleton?

      source
      • owenfromcanada@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        The short version is: we use some weird abstractions (i.e., ways of representing complex things) to do math and make sense of things.

        The longer version:

        Electromagnetic signals are how we transmit data wirelessly. Everything from radio, to wifi, to xrays, to visible light are all made up of electromagnetic signals.

        Electromagnetic waves are made up of two components: the electrical part, and the magnetic part. We model them mathematically by multiplying one part (the magnetic part, I think) by the constant i, which is defined as sqrt(-1). These are called “complex numbers”, which means there is a “real” part and a “complex” (or “imaginary”) part. They are often modeled as the diagram OP posted, in that they operate at “right angles” to each other, and this makes a lot of the math make sense. In reality, the way the waves propegate through the air doesn’t look like that exactly, but it’s how we do the math.

        It’s a bit like reading a description of a place, rather than seeing a photograph. Both can give you a mental image that approximates the real thing, but the description is more “abstract” in that the words themselves (i.e., squiggles on a page) don’t resemble the real thing.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • L0rdMathias@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Circles are good at math, but what to do if you not have circle shape? Easy, redefine problem until you have numbers that look like the numbers the circle shape uses. Now we can use circle math on and solve problems about non-circles!

        source
    • diaphanous@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Yes, relativity for example!

      source
  • BorgDrone@lemmy.one ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Now calculate the angles

    source
    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      That’s actually pretty easy. With CB being 0, C and B are the same point. Angle A, then, is 0, and the other two angles are undefined.

      source
      • crmsnbleyd@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        A is clearly a right angle

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • hydroptic@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      No thank you

      source
  • jerkface@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Doesn’t this also imply that i == 1 because CB is zero, forcing AC and AB to be coincident? That sounds like a disproving contradiction to me.

    source
    • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I think BAC is supposed to be defined as a right-angle, so that AB²+AC²=CB²

      => AB+1²=0²

      => AB = √-1

      => AB = i

      source
      • jerkface@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        I mean, I see that’s how they would have had to get to i, but it’s not a right triangle.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Image

    source
  • produnis@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Too complexe for me ;)

    source
  • iAvicenna@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    you are imagining things

    source
  • AcesFullOfKings@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    [deleted]
    source
    • Bassman1805@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      The reason it doesn’t work is that 1 is a scalar while i is a vector (with magnitude 1). The Pythagoras theorem works with scalars, not vectors, so you’d get 1^2 +1^2 = 2.

      source
      • hydroptic@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Far as I understand it (which is not very far), i is a scalar even if you take it to be the complex number 0 + i. Just by itself i is the imaginary unit that’s defined as i = sqrt(-1), and nothing in that says it’s a vector quantity.

        Even though complex numbers do extend real numbers into a 2D plane doesn’t mean they’re automatically vectors, and – again, as far as I’ve understood things – they’re still treated as single entities, ie. scalars.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • someacnt_@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        I am sorry, but… to be pedantic, pythagorean theorem works on real-valued length. Complex numbers can be scalars, but one does not use it for length for some reason I forgor.

        source
    • owenfromcanada@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      If AB = i and BC = 0, then B would be in the same 2D space as C, but one of them would be “above” the other in 3D space (which doesn’t exist in this context, just as sqrt(-1) doesn’t exist in the traditional sense).

      So this triangle represents a 2D object that is “standing up” on the page.

      source
      • rtxn@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        It makes sense if you represent complex numbers as (a, b) pairs, where a is the real part and b is the imaginary part (just like the popular a + bi representation). AB’s length is (1, 0), AC’s length is (0, 1), and BC’s length will also be a complex number.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • _stranger_@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      A?= 90°

      source
  • mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    What if not a Hilbert space?

    source
  • I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    It’s not wrong, just drawn on the imaginary plane

    source
  • Boomkop3@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Turn around…

    source
    • Maiq@lemy.lol ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Bright eyes.

      source
      • Zoop@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Every now and then, do ya fall apart?

        source
  • Boomkop3@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    [deleted]
    source
    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Every now and then, I get a little bit lonely and you’re never coming 'round

      source
    • hydroptic@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcOxhH8N3Bo

      source
      • Boomkop3@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Exactly what I thought of, but then I was like… nah that’s too cheesy

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • Stomata@buddyverse.one ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Stop daydreaming 😁

    source
  • someacnt_@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Seems like one can maybe work with complex metric. Interesting idea

    source
  • barsoap@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Looks like a finite state machine or some other graph to me, which just happens to have no directed edges.

    source