Start learning math

>Start learning math
>Learn about real numbers, fractions, linear algebra and some other stuff
>Read about "imaginary numbers" that are just made up

Is this a joke? Fuck this trash. Just make something up if things aren't working out hurrr

Other urls found in this thread:

betterexplained.com/articles/a-visual-intuitive-guide-to-imaginary-numbers/
youtube.com/watch?v=F_0yfvm0UoU
youtube.com/watch?v=-dhHrg-KbJ0
youtu.be/Q6Gw08pwhws?t=28m
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

They're basically two dimensional vectors with a shitty name and some other rules.

Brainlet detected.
Mathemathical abstractions can go farther than our perception of reality.

complex numbers basically correspond to rotating and scaling in two dimensions. there now it's physical enough, you can rest easy.

All of the basic operations (addition, multiplication etc) can be interpreted as scaling or translated along the number line (1 dimension). Complex extend this metaphor by allowing for rotation.

Imaginary number is just a name for them. It's not in any way made up or "imaginary" to make things work. It has plenty of real life usages.

All of math is structured around our needs, they are useful for things like wavefunctions, so decided to begin using them.

All numbers are just made up you ginger jizzstain

>So then 2x2 matrices are also made hurrr as well as all numbers hurrr just made up to signify quantity hurrr

The sorrow I feel for anti-science mindset.

>tfw when math illiterate brainlets don't even realize that constructing real numbers from rationals is even less intuitive than building complex from reals

real numbers are made-up bullshit

at least finite extensions from rationals makes sense

I stopped caring about math when I was introduced to the concept of imaginary numbers. What a crock of shit. If your equation can only be solved by inventing numbers that can't exist, like some kind of math deity , then you are fucking wrong and the math is flawed. Same for algebra solutions that basically say "the correct answer is whatever the correct answer is". Thats what the math said transcribed to words but god forbid if i wrote in down in english instead of the ancient math runes the teacher word mark me wrong.

Math is logical and numbers never lie my ass. Math is just as flawed as any other human construct.

Is there somewhere that I can read a more detailed explanation of this?

negative numbers are made up faggot

>just make something up if things aren't working hurrr
Mathematical facts may or may not have physical meaning. The mathematical fact: 2+2=4 makes sense to us because we associate a physical meaning to the numbers 2 and 4 as well as the addition operation.

However there doesn't need to be some sort of physical meaning behind a mathematical definition, axiom, or fact.

Mathematics is often times used as a tool to describing our world. So purely mathematical concepts often times become tied to real world examples and definitions.

Since mathematics is used as a model for our natural world we often create axioms that are convenient in describing intuitively our world.

Now onto the topic about imaginary numbers. All it is is the application of the definition i^2=-1. Consider all possible numbers (complex numbers) as a plane in which the x axis is the real numbers and the y axis is the imaginary part and a complex number would be a vector such as 2+3i or something like that.

We haven't broken math here. We've just created a definition and applied it in a logical way. Whether that definition has physical meaning is irrelevant.

You have to get away from justifying things in math strictly through physical implication. It's hard, I know. It was hard for earlier mathematicians too. It took a while for the concept of zero to be formulated. Negative numbers also feel to be so nonphysical.

Regardless, i is used in the wavefunction, which in its simplest form is Ae^(i(kr-wt). So there IS application for it.

>be humanitiesfag
>constantly encounter the outer fringes of maths in a hundred different branches of philosophy, from analytics to metaphysics
>be amazed by the mystical potential of maths being the language of reality itself
>be slightly in awe of STEMfags and assume they tap into this majesty through hard work, and humanitiesfags like me are missing out
>start learning maths
>it's fucking tough
>get to the point where I can just barely understand higher order university-level stuff
>eagerly start talking to esteemed, visionary, world-famous mathematicians at my university
>mfw I realize they are all complete, intuitive materialists in their outlook
>mfw they don't grasp an iota of the mystical or metaphysical aspects of higher maths
>mfw they don't even really understand what the concreteness of mathematical laws imply, and spend most of their time playing at meaningless quantitative number puzzles
>mfw even professional scientists are childlike retards who are genuinely content with puerile, reductionist accounts of the nature of reality
>mfw the vast majority of high level STEM people are ignorant of other branches of their own field, let alone other fields or disciplines altogether
>mfw the luminaries of STEM are the biggest reservoir of literally autistic toy collectors in the world
>mfw the vast majority are just average dumb normalfags aside from their single hyper-focused academic specialty
>mfw they don't read books (at all)
>mfw it is actually staggering how stupid they are in every single respect other than knowing one specific kind of maths really well
>mfw totally disillusioned
>mfw realising after all that work that maths isn't even the language of reality but a closed and self-referential puzzlebox for autistic fucking faggots

this is the only real answer. Imaginary numbers are no more "fake" than the Reals. Numbers don't exist in nature (in the sense that if there was no intellectual life, they wouldn't exist), they do exist in the mind, however. I'm not even talking in the philosophical sense of "if we don't exist nothing exists" type mentality, just basic logic.

lol at the mathfag genius meme

Most are just literally autists who have been studying math obsessively from a young age

this is bait, but you clearly don't understand math/science or their implications on reality. go back to school and read a book.

>real numbers
>not actually real

where does this madness end

[eqn]1:=\begin{bmatrix}1&0\\0&1\end{bmatrix}, \quad i:=\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\-1&0\end{bmatrix}\quad \Rightarrow\quad i^2=\begin{bmatrix}-1&0\\0&-1\end{bmatrix}=-1[/eqn]
There you go, brainlet.

>[math]i[/math] is a scalar but lets pretend its a matrix anyway

>not understanding what an isomorphism is

>buzzwords
i want /x/ to leave

>shitty name
yeah
all it does is give morons an "argument" for why they think it's pointless to learn

Then leave.

what an awful fucking post

>no u
not an argument

>being this much of a brainlet

not an argument

Not knowing what an isomorphism is isn't much of argument either

>buzzwords

Molymeme please go

This is true for any hyper-focused academic specialty

Yeah, no, C, like R, is a vector space over itself.

> tfw Leonhard Euler advocated for the existence of imaginary numbers
> tfw you are not even close to the intelligence level of Euler

Wait until you hit shit like Cesaro convergences.

Hurr Durr! Lets take the average of a series!

Hurr Durr! Hey let's take the average of the average of a series!

LETS DO IT AGAIN!

LOL! Now I can make these equations say anything I want!

Seriously. Fuck. Fuck these smoke and mirrors bullshit tricks.

betterexplained.com/articles/a-visual-intuitive-guide-to-imaginary-numbers/
youtube.com/watch?v=F_0yfvm0UoU

>numbers
>they don't have a body so they can't actually be numb

Not all of them user. Some, although they are astonishingly small in number, are concerned with the nature of reality.

You just got to remember that a large percentage of academia are just educated peasants, nothing more. Just like the majority of posters on this forum. If something doesn't lie within their own little narrow world view they pretend it doesn't exist, or worse, denigrate those who offer an alternative view. This is like a "scientific chimp out". No different from the derision people like Darwin got from the scientific community of the time when he came up with the theory of Evolution.

>brainlet

Wait I'm confused, I thought "brainlet" was something dualists and idealists say to mock materialists?

>t. brainlet

>I lack the cognitive ability to realize the obvious utility of manipulating ideas abstractly thru symbols

I feel like I've read this pasta before

Far superior video:
youtube.com/watch?v=-dhHrg-KbJ0

Stop shilling your crap Mathologer

I'm not him, just sharing this video because it's on topic and is the best explanation for complex numbers I have seen.

You didn't use a face.

Euler's identity is probably not the greatest place to start when learning about complex numbers.

Depends whether you're learning math as a requirement for science or for fun. I for one collect mathematical curiosities and in the pursuit of this hobby I've learned a lot of math despite being a lit grad brainlet.

desu this is truth to this pasta.

You lack the cognitive ability to recognize when bullshit is just being made up. But if you insist on following this shit like a sheep then...

x = you
x = arsewipe

Therefore you are an arsewipe.

PROVEN! Mah maths! Hurr Durr!

>x=2
>x=3
>therefore 2=3
I remember learning this in high school, I loved logic and proofs!

Math is technology, not philosophy or theology. It's essentially a series of shortcuts to enable you to calculate real-world problems that are too difficult to tackle with just addition, but in order to know that these shortcuts "work", ie, that they are useful, we HAVE to be able to reduce it down to the bare addition. What you see as a failing, the fact that all of math is reducible to addition, is in fact an essential feature.

Quantities and measurements exists. I find math to be just a way of predicting measurements.

That's applied math and yes it's very important and useful. But math doesn't have to be immediately useful to be worth pursuing, you never know when some weird discovery in abstract math might turn out to have a practical application at some point in the future.

holy shit do you just assume everything you don't know is nonsense because you took calculus 2 and then decided math was too hard for you

it literally means f(ab)=f(a)f(b)
it doesn't get any more straightforward

trole xd

kek'd

Although accurate, that's a horrible representation since you can have elements exist outside the ring you've defined.

Don't forget f is a bijection.

I havnt done math for almost 15 years. I'm starting from the childs work in Khan academy and working up.

I like math because there's an answer that isn't corrupted by bias or subjectivity.

Am I going to discover that math makes me angry because the answers become subjective?

There are answers you can't get to but no, nothing subjective in any branch of math afaik.

Thanks user. That's what I was hoping to hear. I'm doing law and it's ridiculous how much subjectivity is involved, there's no straight answers even when there should be.

Logic will set me free...

The problem with Terry math is that there's no consistency. Math is used to solve problems. If you created a subset of math where 1*1=2 and could use it to consistently solve problems then more power to you.

youtu.be/Q6Gw08pwhws?t=28m

/thread

Imaginary is a terrible name to describe i.

All numbers are imaginary.

>All numbers are just made up
>Numbers don't exist in nature

Nah, math exists without humans. Math is discovered not created.

It doesn't.

>Nah
How can you be so sure? It's true that quantities of things exist, but the value reflects the individual items' RELATIONSHIP with one another. In this way, complex numbers are no more imaginary, because they simply reflect slightly more complex relationships between abstracted entities.

>* is a social construct
meme

>social construct is a social construct

>* is *

>***

>everything is null

>***

Thx

This.
Math is an abstraction plain and simple, whether formally or implicitly so. Guiding intuition in lieu of explicit "rules" in fact serves the same purpose.
Most of the reals in fact fail to correspond with "natural reality." You can no more have e^2/2 oranges than 3i oranges (see: squaring the circle) and the definition as equivalence classes of cauchy sequences in Q isn't at all physically representable since matter is discrete (as is somewhat conscientious for Wildberger)
Informal math is a discovery only insofar as we are discovering the implicit rules we have already set for ourselves

yeah homie

I used to think this way until I started seeing the same mathematical ideas/objects show up in a bunch of different seemingly unrelated situations.

>too wise to bother explaining this
watch out everyone

lad, most of physical laws are mathematical because pretty much all the ones that are relevant to us are statistical

/thread

2D vectors can be added between each other, ie translations. You can multiply/divide a 2D vector by a scalar (this make the vector bigger/smaller) but you can't multiply/divide it by another 2D vector. It's not intuitive and it doesn't make sense.

Complex numbers is what happen when you define the multiplication of a 2D vector by another 2D vector as an homothety. IE when you multiply/divide a 2D vector by another 2D vector, the resulting vector is somewhat bigger (as in the original 2D vector * scalar), but also rotated.

Everything else complex numbers related is just mathematicians making shit up from that. Geez it was bad already, why do you people have to keep making things so complicated?
Multiplying a real number by i is a rotation of 90°. When you rotate it twice the full rotation is 180° and the real number was negated. This must means r*i*i = -r, so i^2 = -1

If you're making a 2D game you should use complex numbers instead of vectors because you will rotate shit, trust me. It's pretty much the same thing anyway, you just have to overwrite the multiply function.