"The true metaphysics of the square root negative 1 remains elusive." - C.F. Gauss

[AProudLefty]

Clarify? I will extend to you the courtesy of restating my position for the ninth time in this thread.

1. The imaginary number i is not defined as the square root of -1

Wow! You're a lost cause.

I'll bite - how do you define the imaginary number i?

 

[IBDaMann]

Wow! You're a lost cause.

Beyond that, do you have anything else that you need explained?

I'll bite - how do you define the imaginary number i?

i is defined as the number that, when squared, equals -1. No square roots.

 

[AProudLefty]

Beyond that, do you have anything else that you need explained?


i is defined as the number that, when squared, equals -1. No square roots.

What does i itself equal to?

 

[IBDaMann]

What does i itself equal to?

Were you not able to read the definition?

 

[AProudLefty]

Were you not able to read the definition?

So i is a number? Is it a real number?

 

[AProudLefty]

This is truly incredible.

 

[IBDaMann]

So i is a number?

i is defined as a number that, when squared, equals -1. There are no square roots involving negative numbers in the definition because that would be totally invalid.

Is it a real number?

Of course not.

 

[AProudLefty]

i is defined as a number that, when squared, equals -1. There are no square roots involving negative numbers in the definition because that would be totally invalid.


Of course not.

Sqrt(-1)^2 = -1

 

[Cypress]

i is defined as a number that, when squared, equals -1. There are no square roots involving negative numbers in the definition because that would be totally invalid.


Of course not.

No , i is defined as the square root of negative 1.

i is definitely an algebraic number because it is the only solution to the polynomial x^2 + 1 = 0.

Obscure posters on an internet message board cannot overturn 200 years of number theory.

 

[Cypress]

Sqrt(-1)^2 = -1

evidently, JPP has some mathematical geniuses who are overturning hundreds of years of mathematical knowledge.

 

[IBDaMann]

Sqrt(-1)^2 = -1

Incorrect. Invalid. You can't take the square root of a negative number. It's bad math. It leads to errors. This is why you can't do it.

 

[AProudLefty]

Incorrect. Invalid. You can't take the square root of a negative number. It's bad math. It leads to errors. This is why you can't do it.

It is called an imaginary number.

You're welcome.

 

[IBDaMann]

evidently, JPP has some mathematical geniuses who are overturning hundreds of years of mathematical knowledge.

Evidently, you believe you speak for hundreds of years of mathematical knowledge. Imagine, a mathematically incompetent moron championing bad math as "hundreds of years of mathematical knowledge."

You are just too stupid to learn.

 

[IBDaMann]

It is called an imaginary number.

I know what it's called. I am also aware of your complete mathematical ignorance.

 

[AProudLefty]

I know what it's called. I am also aware of your complete mathematical ignorance.

Sqrt(-1) is an imaginary number.

You're welcome again.

 

[IBDaMann]

No , i is defined as the square root of negative 1.

False. This is not up for debate. What we have here is a case of a mathematically incompetent moron (you) who is too stupid to learn, who can only post the common laymen's misunderstandings that ChaGPT/Grok/Copilot tells him to believe. You should be taking notes on what I teach you.

i is definitely an algebraic number

There is no such thing as an algebraic number. There are only numbers.

because it is the only solution to the polynomial x^2 + 1 = 0.

Great. Please remind AProudLefty that, as you recognize right here, that there are no square roots in the definition of i, and that the definition defines the value of i.

Obscure posters on an internet message board cannot overturn 200 years of number theory.

You most certainly will not be overturning any number theory whatsoever.

 

[IBDaMann]

Sqrt(-1) is an imaginary number.

Nope. There is no number involving the square root of a negative number. You can't take the square root of a negative number (bad math).

 

[Trumpet]

False. This is not up for debate. What we have here is a case of a mathematically incompetent moron (you) who is too stupid to learn, who can only post the common laymen's misunderstandings that ChaGPT/Grok/Copilot tells him to believe. You should be taking notes on what I teach you.


There is no such thing as an algebraic number. There are only numbers.


Great. Please remind AProudLefty that, as you recognize right here, that there are no square roots in the definition of i, and that the definition defines the value of i.


You most certainly will not be overturning any number theory whatsoever.

"What we have here is a case of a mathematically incompetent moron (you) who is too stupid to learn"
This statement sure shows like you, who knows absolutely nothing about the math is is used in electronics, and calling others moron.,

 

[AProudLefty]

Nope. There is no number involving the square root of a negative number. You can't take the square root of a negative number (bad math).

Hence why they're called imaginary numbers..

 

[Trumpet]

Nope. There is no number involving the square root of a negative number. You can't take the square root of a negative number (bad math).

What about the J operator?????