Turn on thread page Beta

Wormholes - physically possible? watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by polthegael)
    Squishy's sig is a topic on many threads!

    I thought that any root is taken as positive unless it is stated or implied otherwise.

    Using Squishy's logic I could claim (cube root 1)(cube root 1)(cube root 1) is 1 or either of the complex conjugate roots (depends which roots I decided to multiply together). This is stupid. It could be argued that the function isn't one-one so the whole question is meaningless. I disagree. To me the answer is 1 by convention. Likewise the answer to Squishy's (root minus one) squared is minus 1.
    If you take a look at his signature youd see that he doesnt follow that convention. Thats what makes the derivation possible.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Squishy)
    I didn't mean for it.

    √x is defined as the positive square root only. When x < 0, then you take the "positive" complex root (e.g. +i instead of -i).

    There are all sorts of proofs that have a mistake in them but not everyone spots it. I mentioned to someone else the other day:

    Let x < 1
    ln(x) < ln(1)
    ln(x) < 0

    Divide through by ln(x):

    1 < 0
    Its an inequality and not an equation. Thus you have to be careful about the direction of the < sign when you use an operator on both sides. if ln(x) is to be defined then x must be greater than 0. However, if x is between 1 and 0 then ln(x) must be negative. Since ln x is negative you are supposed to turn the < into a > when you divide with it on both sides. Thus the propper result is 1 > 0 which is perfectly true.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by polthegael)
    i is imaginary, not complex :rolleyes:
    Imaginary and real numbers are both subsets of the complex numbers...so technically it's both.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Squishy)
    Imaginary and real numbers are both subsets of the complex numbers...so technically it's both.
    i is not a real number!

    To say that i is complex is strictly true - 0+1i and all that, but why not just accept it is imaginary..?!

    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by polthegael)
    i is not a real number!

    To say that i is complex is strictly true - 0+1i and all that, but why not just accept it is imaginary..?!

    No, I meant that i is imaginary and complex. Zero is the only number that is complex, real and imaginary.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by polthegael)
    To say that i is complex is strictly true - 0+1i and all that, but why not just accept it is imaginary..?!
    why be so pedantic? "i is complex" is a perfectly acceptable statement
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elpaw)
    why be so pedantic? "i is complex" is a perfectly acceptable statement
    If it's good enough for Jelly, it's good enough for us. I agree though, "i is complex" is valid.

    Infact, in the module I do for Further Maths, the chapter is called "Complex numbers" and not "Imaginary numbers".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invisible)
    Infact, in the module I do for Further Maths, the chapter is called "Complex numbers" and not "Imaginary numbers".
    Possibly because it contains numbers which are complex and not just imaginary ones!

    If you look at the earlier post, however, it appeared Squishy was saying that i is both real and complex or something.

    I stated it's not real and is complex without a real component, i.e. imaginary.

    Are you saying this is wrong? :confused:
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by polthegael)
    Possibly because it contains numbers which are complex and not just imaginary ones!

    If you look at the earlier post, however, it appeared Squishy was saying that i is both real and complex or something.

    I stated it's not real and is complex without a real component, i.e. imaginary.

    Are you saying this is wrong? :confused:
    The set of complex numbers is all those in the form x + iy. An imaginary number is a complex number with x = 0.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I think the point being made here is that reals and imaginarys are subsets of the complex numbers. Mathematicians usually consider any number with an imaginary component to be complex, even if it can also be classed as purely imaginary.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by polthegael)
    Possibly because it contains numbers which are complex and not just imaginary ones!

    If you look at the earlier post, however, it appeared Squishy was saying that i is both real and complex or something.

    I stated it's not real and is complex without a real component, i.e. imaginary.

    Are you saying this is wrong? :confused:
    Do you mean real as in "It is real" or real as in "It belongs to the class real".

    Some physical concepts are not explainable without imaginary numbers so I would say imaginary numbers are quite real , although they are not real numbers (well the are real numbers but they are not REAL numbers).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I think the best way to put it is as follows. Complex numbers exist. They are not however real numbers .
 
 
 

University open days

  • University of Exeter
    Undergraduate Open Days - Exeter Campus Undergraduate
    Wed, 24 Oct '18
  • University of Bradford
    Faculty of Health Studies Postgraduate
    Wed, 24 Oct '18
  • Northumbria University
    All faculties Undergraduate
    Wed, 24 Oct '18
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.