__Are Imaginary Numbers still__

__(fictitious, absurd, false) or (sophisticated, subtle)__

__relative to Real Numbers?__
The ancients rejected

Diophantus used

As late as the sixteenth century we find mathematicians referring to the

Before Descartes’ introduction of the term

**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