Quantcast

A community for students. Sign up today!

Here's the question you clicked on:

55 members online
  • 0 replying
  • 0 viewing

badreferences

  • 2 years ago

What are imaginary numbers? Well, wonder no more. This is the most solid explanation I could find online, and it's really good. http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/199676/what-are-imaginary-numbers

  • This Question is Closed
  1. bahrom7893
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    yooo you're in luck.. I'm taking a course in complex variables.

  2. bahrom7893
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    uhmm I don't have a scanner at home, but msg me your email, I'll scan my notes tomorrow and email them to you.

  3. estudier
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 2

    What are imaginary numbers? Not real......

  4. bahrom7893
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    basically an imaginary number's an ordered pair

  5. heedcom
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    its when you try to take the square root of a negative number

  6. estudier
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 2

    There is only one imaginary number, i, defined by i^2 = -1

  7. bahrom7893
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    not really... a+bi are all imaginary.. a is the real part, b is the imaginary part.

  8. estudier
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 2

    b is real

  9. heedcom
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    you guys are confusing this student, lol

  10. estudier
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 2

    Stir,stir......

  11. bahrom7893
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    if a=0, the number is called pure imaginary.. Idk otherwise my professor was lying to me. No we're not, everyone knows that i is imaginary.

  12. estudier
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 2

    i is appended to the real number system by fiat......

  13. heedcom
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    lol

  14. bahrom7893
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    which is defined by: (a,b)(c,d) = (ac-bd, ad+bc)

  15. heedcom
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    this conversation is really good for this student, keep it up guys

  16. bahrom7893
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    i meant i is an ordered pair, (0,1)

  17. estudier
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 2

    Then you make up an imaginary plane to go with this imagijnary number.....

  18. badreferences
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    The link I provided in the OP is a solid construction of how we (us normal humans, and bahrom7893) conjectured the Platonic existence of imaginary numbers. For further reading, check out "Mathematics: Its Content, Methods and Meaning" by A.D. Aleksandrov, et al.

  19. estudier
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 2

    Then the student says "Does it work in 3D?"

  20. heedcom
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    lol,

  21. bahrom7893
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    i^2 = i*i = (0,1)(0,1) = (0*0-1*1,0*1+1*0)=(-1,0)... that's where i^2 = -1 came from.

  22. bahrom7893
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    I was like WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWW

  23. badreferences
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    The real wow comes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity .

  24. bahrom7893
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    yea that too.. i need to read its proof

  25. heedcom
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    it seems the questions stater already knew much info but wanted to see how we explain complex numbers, lol

  26. estudier
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 2

    the sqrt of -1 came from messing about with negative logs....

  27. bahrom7893
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    it seems that you don't know badrefs lol

  28. bahrom7893
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    never heard of that one estudier..

  29. badreferences
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    That's because I'm on very intermittently. I can't get to know everyone around here.

  30. badreferences
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    Yeah, logarithms provided the construction of imaginaries. Let me pull one up.

  31. bahrom7893
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    my professor lied to me.... :/

  32. badreferences
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    Not necessarily. I learned something else in math. In physics we constructed Platonic imaginaries through logs.

  33. badreferences
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    Because in physics we were more concerned with the "existence" of things.

  34. estudier
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 2

    @bahrom7893 - that's cos complex analysis is for pure mathematicians (they have to justify their existence, y'see:-)

  35. badreferences
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    That explains it. I can't find the reference right now, sorry. :<

  36. estudier
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 2

    Let me see if I can dig it up.....

  37. badreferences
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    Save us @estudier !

  38. estudier
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 2

    This might be it http://www.maa.org/editorial/euler/How%20Euler%20Did%20It%2046%20e%20pi%20and%20i.pdf

  39. estudier
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 2

    "...They were perplexed because they had equally convincing (and flawed) arguments to "prove" that ln(-x) = ln(x)..."

  40. estudier
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 2

    "They" being Bernoulli and Euler

  41. estudier
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 2

    Anyway, the point is ln(-1) = pi*i

  42. estudier
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 2

    I'll try to post something as to how you can get a quantity that evaluates to -1 without all the hoopla.....

  43. badreferences
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    A really amusing question from Math Underflow http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/202172/why-is-i-0-498015668-0-154949828i What does \(i!\) evaluate to?

  44. estudier
    • 2 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 2

    Take a pair of vectors uv with the normal rules for multiplication etc and so write uv = 1/2(uv+vu) + 1/2(uv-vu) So that first term is basically u dot v and we'll call the second one u (wedge) v. uv = u.v + u wedge v vu = u.v - u wedge v Multiply these two uvvu = (u.v9^2 -(u wedge v)^2 Since vv = |v|^2 -> (u wedge v)^2 =-|u|^2|v|^2sin^2 theta So whatever u wedge v is, it's square is a negative scalar

  45. Not the answer you are looking for?
    Search for more explanations.

    • Attachments:

Ask your own question

Ask a Question
Find more explanations on OpenStudy

Your question is ready. Sign up for free to start getting answers.

spraguer (Moderator)
5 → View Detailed Profile

is replying to Can someone tell me what button the professor is hitting...

23

  • Teamwork 19 Teammate
  • Problem Solving 19 Hero
  • You have blocked this person.
  • ✔ You're a fan Checking fan status...

Thanks for being so helpful in mathematics. If you are getting quality help, make sure you spread the word about OpenStudy.

This is the testimonial you wrote.
You haven't written a testimonial for Owlfred.