Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Why Numbers are Imaginary?

Are Imaginary Numbers still 
(fictitious, absurd, false) or (sophisticated, subtle) 
relative to Real Numbers?

 The ancients rejected Negative Numbers as being without meaning because they could see no way physically to interpret a number that is “less than nothing.”

Diophantus used only the Positive Root when solving a quadratic.

As late as the sixteenth century we find mathematicians referring to the Negative Roots of an equation as "fictitious or absurd or false".

Before Descartes’ introduction of the term "imaginary" for such numbers, the square roots of negative numbers were called "sophisticated or subtle".



So, can't you still visualize "Imaginary Numbers" in the 21st century?

If you can, please explain the meaning of Im(Im(Im(S))), where S is a complex number.
S = 2+5i
(real part is 2, imaginary part is 5); Re(S)=2, Im(S)=5.

The depth of complex numbers is a possibility in mathematics. The philosophy behind mathematics is equally important for true mathematicians.

Please share this challenge with your Pure Mathematics (Number Theory) professor or someone higher in the field. Send this challenge to universities and respectable mathematics communities in your reach.


I know someone, who can explain Imaginary numbers in real terms, better than others.

Such knowledge can shift the mathematics we know today, to a broader scope, because we get the opportunities to work with all possibilities of Imaginary numbers, without loosing information in current calculations.
How does the mathematics community value such knowledge?
Any reasonable offer (to encourage his further research) as an appreciation?


No comments:

Post a Comment