Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Imaginary Numbers

Name: !kuk54qxINg 2007-12-18 17:27

Are complex numbers any more imaginary than real numbers? What makes pi more real than i?

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-21 10:15

>>37

Actually, "L'Hôpital" is an anachronism.  L'Hospital himself lived before the ô notation came into use, and spelled his own name "L'Hospital".

I agree with you that >>32 is a dumbfuck.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-22 3:55

>>41

>>37
here. Looks like you're right.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-22 13:47

>>36
no, I vaguely remember a measure of dimensionality from my linear algebra class... and the complex number plane is clearly two-dimensional.  Real numbers are 1 dimensional, thus imaginary numbers are 1 dimensional.

>>37
no u

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-22 15:08

>>34
Nullity/0 = (0/0)/0 = 0/(0*0) = 0/0 = Nullity

Here's a question: What would a calculator/computer come up with as an answer for 1/0 if division by 0 wasn't predefined as an error?

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-22 15:20

>>44
Infinite loop.
Integer division implementations tend to work by repeatedly subtracting the divisor from the dividend until the divisor is smaller than the dividend, and counting how many times it subtracts.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-22 15:44

>>43
The complex line is of 1 complex dimension.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-22 22:30

>>44
What's sqrt(nullity) lololol

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-23 0:28

>>46
Troll

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-23 4:39

What makes perfect sets so perfect? I want to know guys

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-23 20:08

>>47
For easier typing purposes, I'm representing nullity with Ø
sqrt(Ø) = sqrt(0)/sqrt(0) = 0/0 = Ø

>>45
Therefore, x/0 = infinity, unless x = 0, which then = 0/0 = Ø.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-23 20:19

Nullity is a joke right?

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-24 1:51

>>51

Not for Dr. James Anderson.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2006/12/06/divide_zero_feature.shtml

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-24 1:52

>>52

See http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=H4Jw9DhSXeU for a non-realplayer version. This was on BBC.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-24 5:14

>>51
Anderson was serious, but it's a running joke in the mathematics community, yes.
Whether this means everyone on /sci/ realises this is a different matter.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-24 7:08

"If your heart pacemaker divides by zero, you're dead!"
O SHI-!

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-24 16:01

1/9 = .111111111111111...
2/9 = .222222222222222...
3/9 = .333333333333333...

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-24 16:16

>>56
Not again.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-24 18:23

>>54

Anderson is retard. He just invented new name for 0/0. He didn't solve anything. He didn't say anything about qualities of his supposed result (Nullity), apart that it is outside R. What good did he do by just renaming the (unknown) outcome of a problem? Do we know how to treat that supposed value? What if indeed, a pacemaker divides by zero and gets Nullity instead of an exception? Then what? How is that value to be interpreted and treated?

Btw. Proper unit testing ensures no divisions by zero (overflows, null pointers, etc) go unhandled.

Name: RedCream 2007-12-24 20:07

>>57
Oh, yes, again.  As often as possible, in fact, until the TRUTH of the statement is WIDELY accepted!

.
.
.
8/9 = .888888888888888...
9/9 = .999999999999999... = 1

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-24 23:46

e^(i*pi)-1=0
[bold]THE MOST REMARKABLE FORMULA IN MATH.[/bold]

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-25 2:08

>>59
Nu-uh. .9999... is .9999.... so it can't be 1.


LOL JK IM TROLLING LOLOLOL IM HILARIOUS, YES?

Name: RedCream 2007-12-25 12:49

>>61
DEAD WRONG, to wit:

1 = 9/9 = 9x(1/9) = 9x(0.111...) = 0.999... = 1

MAXIMUM PWNAGE!

>>60
And, YOU, fuckstick, should learn BBCode before we carve out your torso and make a stew of your organs for our feasting!

eπi-1=0

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-25 13:02

>>62
we've been through this before, and the conclusion is equal but different, just like negros and normal people.  0.999... is the negros.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-25 16:40

BBCode works here?

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-26 0:08

>>64
Yes it fag

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-26 1:16

>>63
3/6 and 2/4 are equal but different too, I assume?

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-26 19:27

>>63


Nope.
They're fucking equal, goddammit.

RedCream's "proof" is stupid.

Real numbers are defined as equivalence classes however you define them, and 1 and 0.999..... are in the same equivalence class and are therefore equal, under the mathematical usage of the word equal.

Name: RedCream 2007-12-27 2:08

>>67
RedCream's proof is entirely algebraic and as such is enough to establish the proof.  Seeking higher orders of proof violates Ockham's Razor, and as such, doesn't materially detract from RedCream's proof.

FAIL IS THINE.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-27 2:55

>>68
Your proof is essentially circular. You start by assuming 1/9 = 0.111..., and then show 0.999... = 1. While it's certainly true that 0.111... = 1/9, people who don't believe 0.999... = 1 obviously are not going to accept your proof anymore than they would accept "0.999... = 1 because I said so." They will simply resort to claiming 1/9 != 0.111...

The better algebraic proofs (or better still, analytic proofs) do not rely on the decimal expansions of other fractions.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-27 5:06

>>69
The problem isn't a need for better proofs, though; it's a need for less-retarded people.  Good luck satisfying that stipulation.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-27 6:02

>>34
nullity/0 = 7

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-27 11:41

>>68
Redcream's proof is entirely algebraic, and thus only right if you assume the property that you're trying to prove.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-27 14:57

ok, nau letz discuss why 0.999... = 1

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-27 15:04

>>73
tis a ghost of the mind, a child of ideas

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-27 17:08

Rock

Robot Rock

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-27 21:41

>>75
But it wasn't a rock!



It was a Rock LobALL GLORY TO HYPNOTOAD.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-27 21:52

>>68
Occam's Razor is not any criteria/on for validity or truth, but rather a general rule for pleasing Scottish Realists (most Americans follow Scottish Realism).

Name: RedCream 2007-12-27 23:39

>>69
That 1/9 = 0.111... is NOT an assumption.  It's easily calculated algebraically, and then by series theory it goes to infinity.

In short, it's true.  Deal with it!

Then on top of that, you plainly state:

"... it's certainly true that 0.111... = 1/9 ..."

M-A-X-I-M-U-M  P-W-N-A-G-E!

From your massfail and maxipwnage, the established truth of 1/9 = 0.111... simply leads to establishing irrevocably that:

0.999... = 1

It's true!  DEAL WITH IT!  Accept it, before it destroys you!

>>77
Ockam's Razor is a fundamental rule of the universe.  It's utterly and verifiably true that all other things being equal, the simpler explanation is likely to be correct.  Like poster #69, you're just wrong, and very wrongly so are you wrong.  Gawd, you're SO WRONG, it hurts!

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-28 1:36

>>78
My statement that "it's certainly true that 0.111... = 1/9" does not mean that fact is exempt from needing to be proved. Your proof starts with an assumption - a provable assumption, but an assumption nonetheless - which the "1 != 0.999..." fags obviously do not agree with.

Your proof is equivalent to proving Pi is irrational by saying "Pi/2 is irrational, and 2*x where x is irrational is trivially irrational, so Pi is irrational." It's vacuous, because someone questioning the irrationality of Pi would obviously question the irrationality of Pi/2 as well.

Lastly, with respect to "It's true!  DEAL WITH IT!  Accept it, before it destroys you!" - I never said it wasn't true, you mouth breathing inbred middle school drop out.

Name: Anonymous 2007-12-28 2:01

we can all at least agree that 0.999... is a fag
Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode -