peas in a pod. everyone hates hume. pretty much everyone hates cypress
"The true metaphysics of the square root negative 1 remains elusive." - C.F. Gauss
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
Perry, you probably gave up the pretense of having a geochemistry PhD, because people with bachelor's and master's degrees were just as knowledgeable, if not more so, than you.
Yes, evidently he thinks acoustic waves are not effected by density and material properties.
I'm retired, you claim to be employed.
So while you're on your employers dime you spend all day seething over my threads, and composing posts on them.
If you really thought my posts were bullshit you wouldn't spend 90 percent of your time on JPP reading my threads and dropping posts on them.
There must be medication for his obsession and festering imaginary grievances about me.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You don't know enough to correctly state what I wrote. The imaginary number i has ample place in science and mathematics. I wrote that there is no room for any square root of -1. You really should just hang it up. The imaginary number i does not equal the square root of -1.
1. It's not my opinion
2. Math will never change to somehow make the imaginary number i equal the square root of -1.
You were stupid for posting such an egregiously boneheaded citation. You should have gone to college. Wait, I take that back. Nobody should be obligated to go to college. Your high school should have taught you this, though.
I've never seen the point of using socks.
No real number squared can equal negative 1.
The polynomial X^2+ 1 = 0 has no solution on the real number line.
It does have a solution on the complex number plane in the form of the imaginary number square root of negative 1.
Many polynomials only have solutions on the complex plane, not on the real number line.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
The imaginary number i has properties that enable the modeling of the behavior of some natural systems. Geometry exists for this very reason.
... but you posted it, so you own it on this forum.
When you read the title, you should have immediately recognized them as fraudsters. When you noticed that the article appealed to you, you should have realized that they were fraudsters. When you realized that they were trying to hide behind math gibberish to express some confusing notion that they could not express in plain English, you should have realized that they were fraudsters.
I hate to break it to you, but the imaginary number i was created as a convenience to make a simple mathematical model that expressed the cyclical nature of observed phenomena, typically of electric and electromagnetic energy.
I've already written that.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Awesome. Now it has been reinforced.
Indeed. You certainly prefer a discussion. I agree, I do not understand the life of someone doing nonsense constantly.
Yes, certainly obsessive behavior.
I'm retired from a very fulfilling career, Perry
The question is why are you relentlessly posting to my threads on your boss's dime while you're at work?
I really don't think a thread with a science article should be that much of a stretch for the reasonably educated.
The trolls just want to be jerks. I don't understand why they waste their time.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
So now you’re a psychiatrist? If so you should realize it’s unethical to diagnose without an in person evaluation.
If not then you’re doing your usual rant about how shmart you are compared to the rest of the world.
No one is trying to score points against you. They’re just calling it like it is. What is it you’re trying to prove on this forum?
I think I know. In reality nobody wants anything to do with you. Hence your bestie is Dutch who is incapable of forming real life relationships, which is why he’s here averaging 100 posts/day.
Daylight 63 is anything but right wing. In fact he’s quite the leftist.
You're free to fantasize that there is widespread scorn of me, rather than just the petty grievances of a handful of right-wing Trump Dick Suckers. I'm sure it makes you feel exhilarated to believe that. If you don't want "anything" to do with me, how do many of my threads get such a high post count?
That's not the question that interested me though.
This is the philosophical question I teased out of the article:
In electromagnetism and most other fields of physics, imaginary numbers are merely a mathematical convenience. All the relevant phenomena can still be described using nothing but real numbers. Quantum mechanics is an exception: The observable quantities and probabilities are by necessity all real, but the underlying quantum states and governing equations involve imaginary numbers, and there’s no simple way to remove them.
In new theoretical work they find that....no real-valued version of quantum theory can duplicate all the predictions of the familiar complex-valued formulation.