# What does it mean by find the real root of f(x)

Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
I was doing an iteration question and in part be they asked me to find the real root of the iteration . Like what's that?
0
4 years ago
#2
(Original post by Rxha)
I was doing an iteration question and in part be they asked me to find the real root of the iteration . Like what's that?
Your ordinary every day root.

If you never studied complex numbers then you don't have to worry about it.
0
4 years ago
#3
**** explanation but a real number is one that definitely exists, complex (non real) numbers include stuff such as square root -1 which you have to express in more complex ways as they shouldn't exist. A root for f(x) is a value of x where the function is = 0. Basically its just asking you to find a root for the function that does exist.
0
4 years ago
#4
(Original post by Vikingninja)
**** explanation but a real number is one that definitely exists, complex (non real) numbers include stuff such as square root -1 which you have to express in more complex ways as they shouldn't exist. A root for f(x) is a value of x where the function is = 0. Basically its just asking you to find a root for the function that does exist.
Now that is a topic for conversation. In what way does -1.732 or -pi, exist but 3 +2i doesn't?
1
4 years ago
#5
(Original post by Towcestermaths)
Now that is a topic for conversation. In what way does -1.732 or -pi, exist but 3 +2i doesn't?
...in the sense that is different from .
0
4 years ago
#6
(Original post by Zacken)
...in the sense that is different from .
Complex numbers are just as real as 'real' numbers

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
4 years ago
#7
(Original post by Kyx)
Complex numbers are just as real as 'real' numbers

Posted from TSR Mobile
The complex number i is certainly not real as the number 1. They both exist, sure but i is certainly not real at all.
0
4 years ago
#8
(Original post by Towcestermaths)
Now that is a topic for conversation. In what way does -1.732 or -pi, exist but 3 +2i doesn't?
"Real" is not used in a conventional sense and does not really refer to existence. In Layman's terms, real numbers are numbers can be expressed along an infinite, one dimensional, number line. most certainly does, and should, exist, and its value is . If we claim that complex numbers "should not", or "technically do not" exist then many concepts will fall apart.

In all technicality you can write any given real number as , meaning that any real number could be interpreted as a complex number. There is no part of the conventional definition that implies that real numbers and complex numbers are completely mutually exclusive in this sense (most definitions state it to be a number in the form ). Obviously, complex numbers with a non-zero complex part cannot be considered real numbers.
0
4 years ago
#9
(Original post by B_9710)
The complex number i is certainly not real as the number 1. They both exist, sure but i is certainly not real at all.
What _gcx said.

The term 'real' number is an unfortunate name

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
4 years ago
#10
(Original post by Kyx)
Complex numbers are just as real as 'real' numbers

Posted from TSR Mobile
That has nothing to do with what Zacken said.
1
X

new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

### Oops, nobody has postedin the last few hours.

Why not re-start the conversation?

see more

### See more of what you like onThe Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

### Poll

Join the discussion

#### How did your AQA A-level Psychology Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (262)
42.67%
The paper was reasonable (255)
41.53%
Not feeling great about that exam... (53)
8.63%
It was TERRIBLE (44)
7.17%