It'll be ok. Nobody's going to judge you.

Comments

• Klear@piefed.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  It’s more complex than that…

  source

  • devaly@ani.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    cmon, get real

    source

    • LemmyPlaceDN@europe.pub ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Think rationally

      source
  • Soulphite@reddthat.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Image

    source
  • sundray@lemmus.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    But it’s plane to see…

    source
• NaibofTabr@infosec.pub ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Just one more axiom bro and it will all make sense… just one more I swear it’s consistent… BRO I just NEED one more conjecture and it will BE complete… tHe pRincIPles ARe sOLid BrO jUST TruST mE!

  source
• davad@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  I’ve always thought “imaginary” vs “real” was an unfortunate naming convention.

  I don’t know about other fields, but electrical engineering uses imaginary numbers with AC circuits and changing electrical fields. Since electricity moves as waves, imaginary numbers let you represent what’s coming 90 degrees later in a compact way.

  source

  • FishFace@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Yeah, I think it causes unnecessary difficulties. I actually think they’re introduced at a time when you could instead teach them as two-dimensional vectors with pointwise addition and a special multiplication and division rule, and prove that (0, 1)×(0, 1) = (-1, 0) using that rule, so that sqrt(-1, 0) = (0, 1).

    Then you can establish a convention that you write (a, b) as a + bi (and i = (0, 1)).

    This is too abstract for younger students, but nowadays I don’t think they learn complex numbers anyway, and I think it would be less spooky for the older students.

    source

    • sangeteria@lemmy.ml ⁨13⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

      Also tbf, rational numbers are just the lattice modded out by the equivalence relations (a, b) ~ (c, d) iff ad = bc, and the equivalence classes just happen to form an ordered field. If you show an undergrad math/science student this esoteric definition of rationals, the motivation of “2D numbers” makes a lot more sense. Of course, please don’t show this to an elementary or middle schooler, a high schooler might be able to handle this if they’re passionate about math.

      source
  • IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Not just electricians.

    3d graphics are all about about quaternions (4d version of imaginary numbers).

    source

    • Snazz@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

      Quaternions are useful, but no means necessary or intrinsic to 3d graphics.

      They are useful for describing rotations in 3d space, but the same can be done with a matrix, or even Euler angles. It’s just a more calculations.

      That said, basically all the major game engines use quaternions, so unless you are creating your own 3d renderer, you have to learn at least the basics about them.

      Quaternions really shine at spherical interpolation (Slerp - yes thats the real terminology) between two rotations.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • omega_x3@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

    Electrical engineers also use them as a simple way of solving differential equations with laplace transforms. Much easier as long as you don’t care about what happens at infinity.

    source
  • BCsven@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

    Yep, it is bad naming. I took it in highschool but it didn’t really make sense till I saw how it described electric fields with the wave 90 degrees into the flat page.

    source
• yesman@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  It’s not like the regular numbers behave themselves. Have you ever heard a coherent, non-self referential definition of the number 3?

  source

  • QuantumSparkles@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

    3 is a sideways nutsack

    source

    • bhamlin@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

      W is a nutsack getting elaborately crushed

      source
  • gezero@sopuli.xyz ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    It’s 2 plus 1

    source

    • protist@retrofed.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

      Oh yeah? Prove it

      source
  • arctanthrope@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    the only numbers that actually exist are 0 and 1. everything else is a reference to those

    source

    • spicehoarder@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      I can define zero as the absence of 1. But also 1 itself is a reference to the infinitely fractional 0.00…1 and I’d consider that a different number to the whole number 1

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • anise@awful.systems ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    {{},{{}}} (I think)

    source

    • WilloftheWest@feddit.uk ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      That would be 2. 3 would be {{},{{}},{{},{{}}}}.

      source
  • IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    3 = . . .

    source
  • ProfessorScience@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    λ f. λ x. f (f (f x))

    source

    • BlackRoseAmongThorns@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

      Succs to succ.

      source
• Kolanaki@pawb.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  All numbers are imaginary. So are words.

  source

  • expatriado@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    for real, which is imaginary

    source

    • Kolanaki@pawb.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Especially for solipists.

      source
• Battle_Masker@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  alright wise guy, what IS the square root of -1 then?

  source

  • nibbler@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    alright wise guy, what IS -1divided by 0 then?

    source

    • davad@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      -1/0 = Boom

      But more literally, the answer is undefined.

      Instead of thinking of division as a “proper” operator, think of it as shorthand for “x0 = -1". Since the multiplication operator already defines "x0 => 0” and “-1 != 0”, there literally is no answer by definition. So “undefined”.

      For “0/0”, it’s a little different. Since “x*0 => 0”, literally every number satisfies “0/0”. Since we’re expecting a single number as the answer, we call the answer to this “undefined” too.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • CommissarVulpin@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Why should I care?

    source
• RobotToaster@mander.xyz ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Then they invented quarternions.

  source
• TheTechnician27@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  They’re just closure-minded.

  source
• DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Physicists (only because I watch Sabine, and this is what she says they do)

  Image

  source

  • gezero@sopuli.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    That’s the face I make when someone mentions she is watching Sabine (only because I watch prof Dave)

    source
• TabbsTheBat@pawb.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  “Quārum hī vitiō moriānis?”

  “Moriānis‽ Moriānis vestris incipivit rem tōtam!”

  “Et herem facĕre debēre īre stultum.”

  source