I am currently writing an academic paper demonstrating that imaginary numbers cannot exist in this universe...

I am currently writing an academic paper demonstrating that imaginary numbers cannot exist in this universe, but I feel like something is missing. I would like some feedback. If you want to reference my work ask me for permission first.

Why do you give a shit? Seriously, why? "This universe" is shit, it doesn't matter, it bows to the platonic universe of perfect forms. STOP trying to make everything "make sense" in this universe and it's shit limitations, the only thing that matters is the platonic realm.

>[math]x^2[/math] is always positive

fascinating. what other revelations will you stumble across?

No numbers exist in the universe. The universe only contains physical phenomena, numbers are abstract ideas we pretend to treat as objects because doing so gives us useful tips for how to behave in more productive ways that wouldn't be obvious if we only ever behaved in terms of direct interaction with the physical world.
And insofar as numbers mean anything, imaginary numbers mean as much for the physical world as integers do, they're used for electrical engineering for example which is a very concrete / not just theoretical discipline.

>treating a philosophy of math problem (existence of numbers) as an actual phemonenon

imaginary numbers are what happens when you root a negative

>it will always be positive if it can be squared
yet here we are with negative numbers

That's literally why they're called "imaginary numbers" you retarded dickcheese.
>I feel like something is missing
It's your brain.

Define i^2 as -1. How can you disprove a definition?

>Academic paper
Lul, nice try underage faggot.

Gauss had it right, we really shouldn't call them "imaginary" numbers, brcause they are very much legit and applicable to fields like electronics. "Lateral" numbers would be a better term

Doesn't change the fact that they cannot exist

This is so fucking bad mate holy shit

>0 isn't a number.

Asa opposed to numbers that can?

>I am currently writing an academic paper demonstrating that imaginary numbers cannot exist in this universe
Numbers don't actually exist.
Might as well argue that 1=1, it is the most obvious hypothesis with the most obvious conclusion, leave academia.

>they cannot exist
Of course they can't, numbers aren't real.

That's a good suggestion.
Much better name.
Original with you?
Too late to fix it though.

OP said he was writing an "academic paper", but never said what field he was in.
Certainly not mathematics, probably not in any STEM field, probably not in any subject requiring rigorous logic.
Do I need to "ask permission" to savage his "work"?

>Do I need to "ask permission" to savage his "work"?
One would hope that academia doesn't work that way.

the term "imaginary" was a mistake.
you should study some physics OP.

>they're used for electrical engineering for example which is a very concrete / not just theoretical discipline.
what this guy said
you can do calculations with complex numbers to correctly predict events in the real world

>imaginary numbers cannot exist in this universe
>they still have plenty of applications in real life mathematical physics
hmmm...

imaginary numbers are used to calculate values in even simple circuits

you're an absolute donut

Fucking amen.

While the idea of claiming reality of math objects (at least for algebraic things), is stupid, you cannot "measure" imaginary values. That is, there is no senae in talking about imaginary scalar values. Yea C forms a field, but just by being isomorphic to R^2 you enter into a whole new structure. It's useful as a way to represent vectors, or other objects, but all of complex analysis can be reformulated in terms of R^(2n) if you give it a different structure.

>circular logic

To clarify this, I'm not saying thay complex numbers are not "real" becausr "vectors" are not real, but to actually express vectors you need components which are just real numbers. I'm also not claiming complex analysis is just real analysis for a special case, because that C Forms a field which is also a complete inner product space makes quite a difference.

They're only applicable to fields like electronics because they are basically defined to be applicable

Do you have a proof for "NEGATIVE X NEGATIVE = POSITIVE"?

No. If it were sufficient to just declare a mathematical system applicable to electronics then you could make up some retarded new system where whatever number you feel like is the answer to each question you have on which values to use. Go ahead and try building out working electronic devices using this alternative "whatever answer I feel like" system. Tell me how well that works for you.

Let a < 0, b < 0. Then a x (-b) < 0, and b+(-b) = 0, so a x (b+(-b)) = a x b + a x (-b) = 0 so a x b = -(a x (-b)) > 0.

i x i = -1. You BTFO.

It's called using vectors, polar coordinates and ortogonal transformations.

So you're all basically saying that IMAGINARY numbers are like a black box, people don't know how it works but it works so they must """exist"""?

No, you retard. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_analysis

Unless you define a new system of numbers as ordered pairs of reals and multiplication as [math] (a,b) \times (c,d) = (ac-bd,ad+bc) [/math]. Then [math] (a,0) = a \in \mathbb{R} [/math]. In which case, [math] (0,1) \times (0,1) = (-1,0) = -1 \in \mathbb{R} \subset \mathbb{C} [/math].
>inb4 you can't just make up a new number system!
All number systems are made up. If you wanna argue reals also don't "exist", the Wildburger thread is two doors down.

Define existence

and therefore i have proven, that this apple that I am holding does not exist.

oh the nobel price on thsi one.

>I am currently writing an academic paper demonstrating that imaginary numbers cannot exist in this universe
Of course they don't exist you idiot. They're mathematical constructs

Can i print off your work in order to put it in the bin please?

Your argumentation is flawed. First of, NO number, no relation, no set (in short, no mathematical object at all) "exists" in the same way an electron "exists". So yeah, kudos, trivially imaginary numbers do not "exist". Can you meaningfully use them to model some physical system? Sure you can. Take e.g. some AC reistor. If you model it using complex numbers capacitors and inductors have an "imaginary" resistance. in fact, you can even go a step further and model every newtonian process using hamiltonians, where you even have 3 different kinds of "imaginary" numbers making up the vectors of an object (A typical way to do this would , for a hamiltonian h = a + b i + c j + d k , to let a be the time and b, c , d the locality) ;)

You could remake this argument as

positive*positive = positive

therefore negative numbers don't exist. But that's only because you started with a limited subset. You just have to extend from a number line into a number plane. Of course if you only ever rotate 180 or 360 degrees you will not be able to get off the number line. You need to include rotation by 90 degrees to get off the number line, and that's what i gets you.

>implying 0 is positive
>not knowing what nonnegative means

SHIGGY FUCKING DIGGY

This