Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

i^2 = -1 is BAD MATH.

887 views
Skip to first unread message

Jew Lover

unread,
Apr 3, 2019, 11:03:25 AM4/3/19
to
See video to learn more:

https://youtu.be/Q-GP-pAoIVo

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
Apr 3, 2019, 5:23:14 PM4/3/19
to
On 4/3/2019 8:03 AM, Jew Lover wrote:
> See video to learn more:
>
> https://youtu.be/Q-GP-pAoIVo
>

How can I compute a fractal using your new Math?
Message has been deleted

Me

unread,
Apr 3, 2019, 5:26:15 PM4/3/19
to
On Wednesday, April 3, 2019 at 11:23:14 PM UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 4/3/2019 8:03 AM, Jew Lover wrote:
> >
> > See video to learn more: [...]
> >
> How can I compute a fractal using your new Math?

Fractals are BAD MATH too!!!

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
Apr 3, 2019, 5:26:33 PM4/3/19
to
How would a fractal that uses complex numbers be converted to your new
math? The renderings need to be identical, or else your end does not work.

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
Apr 3, 2019, 5:27:11 PM4/3/19
to
On 4/3/2019 2:24 PM, Me wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 3, 2019 at 11:23:14 PM UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> Fractals ar BAD MATH too!!!
>

Bad math or not, his new work should be able to produce the same
renderings. No?

Me

unread,
Apr 3, 2019, 5:37:07 PM4/3/19
to
Bad math, bad math!!! Functions have to be smooth! And your fractals aren't smooth!

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
Apr 3, 2019, 6:14:14 PM4/3/19
to
Shi% happens man. ;^)

Jan

unread,
Apr 3, 2019, 7:06:38 PM4/3/19
to
No.

--
Jan

j4n bur53

unread,
Apr 3, 2019, 8:42:04 PM4/3/19
to
Poor boy, still struggling with 0.999... = 1 ?

Jew Lover

unread,
Apr 3, 2019, 9:29:45 PM4/3/19
to
I am sorry Jan, but they do have to be smooth otherwise calculus is null and void.

>
> --
> Jan

Jew Lover

unread,
Apr 3, 2019, 9:30:56 PM4/3/19
to
Well, you'd first have to learn it! Chuckle.

Jew Lover

unread,
Apr 3, 2019, 9:32:46 PM4/3/19
to
Actually it's pretty easy because you aren't using calculus when plotting your fractals and aside from the fact that fractals are pretty, they are pretty useless. Chuckle.

Dan Christensen

unread,
Apr 3, 2019, 10:22:20 PM4/3/19
to
Forget fractals. Troll Boy here cannot even compute the derivative of y=x in his goofy system, so he denies that it exists! Even at his advanced age (60+?), he is still struggling with basic, elementary-school arithmetic. As he has repeatedly posted here:


"1/2 not equal to 2/4"
--October 22, 2017

“1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
-- February 8, 2015

"3 =< 4 is nonsense.
--October 28, 2017

"Zero is not a number."
-- Jan. 10, 2017

"0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
-- Jan. 4, 2017

Interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words (December 2018)” at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Zelos Malum

unread,
Apr 4, 2019, 1:24:01 AM4/4/19
to
Den onsdag 3 april 2019 kl. 17:03:25 UTC+2 skrev Jew Lover:
> See video to learn more:
>
> https://youtu.be/Q-GP-pAoIVo

As usual you are wrong.

You do not seem to understand the concept of distributivity.

You can have A c B, with a function f:B->X, where f is not distributive but f|_A is.

There is nothing wrong there.

Though you are gonna cry as you usually do when I bring proper mathematics into the picture

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
Apr 4, 2019, 3:06:30 AM4/4/19
to
They can be useful.

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
Apr 4, 2019, 3:07:18 AM4/4/19
to
No shi%. I was just wondering if you can show me a quick algorihtm using
your new Math that outputs an escape time fractal.

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
Apr 4, 2019, 3:13:18 AM4/4/19
to
On 4/3/2019 7:22 PM, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 3, 2019 at 5:23:14 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 4/3/2019 8:03 AM, Jew Lover wrote:
>>> See video to learn more:
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/Q-GP-pAoIVo
>>>
>>
>> How can I compute a fractal using your new Math?
>
> Forget fractals.

Humm... If he can create a new way to compute, say, the n-ary Mandelbrot
set, then I would be very interested!

[...]

Jew Lover

unread,
Apr 4, 2019, 7:22:01 AM4/4/19
to
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 1:24:01 AM UTC-4, Zelos Malum wrote:
> Den onsdag 3 april 2019 kl. 17:03:25 UTC+2 skrev Jew Lover:
> > See video to learn more:
> >
> > https://youtu.be/Q-GP-pAoIVo
>
> As usual you are wrong.

As usual I am right.

<shit>

Jew Lover

unread,
Apr 4, 2019, 7:23:25 AM4/4/19
to
The New Calculus is about 'calculus'. Your fractals do not require calculus. What part of this do you not understand?

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
Apr 4, 2019, 4:07:12 PM4/4/19
to
Regardless, I am still wondering if you can create a new way to compute
the Mandelbrot.

Jew Lover

unread,
Apr 4, 2019, 5:04:17 PM4/4/19
to
I know of Mandelbrot fractals but I can't understand why you are so fascinated by this useless rubbish?

konyberg

unread,
Apr 4, 2019, 5:34:08 PM4/4/19
to
It isn't useless rubbish! In fact you can use fractals to compress "self similar" images. It is used in physics, economy and several situations when mimic the real world. Besides; mathematical art is beautiful.
KON

Jew Lover

unread,
Apr 4, 2019, 5:48:02 PM4/4/19
to
False.

> Besides; mathematical art is beautiful.

All art that has the property of symmetry is beautiful. My great ancestors who were gods knew this thousands of years ago. Chuckle.


> KON

Me

unread,
Apr 4, 2019, 6:02:35 PM4/4/19
to
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 11:48:02 PM UTC+2, Jew Lover wrote:
> >
> > Besides; mathematical art is beautiful.
> >
> All art that has the property of symmetry is beautiful.

Certainly that's not the only beautiful type of art.

Hint: https://dailyasianage.com/library/1492629900_5.jpg

Jan

unread,
Apr 4, 2019, 6:15:29 PM4/4/19
to
Calculus, yes (differential calculus to be exact). I thought the poster meant
all functions.

--
Jan

Jew Lover

unread,
Apr 4, 2019, 8:31:19 PM4/4/19
to
Glad you like it because it looks like crap to me. Oh well, whatever floats your boat as they say ... :-))

Zelos Malum

unread,
Apr 5, 2019, 2:46:35 AM4/5/19
to
You aren't and notice that you YET AGAIN did NOT adress any of the mathematics provided.

Jew Lover

unread,
Apr 5, 2019, 8:39:15 AM4/5/19
to
I know you love being in communication with the greatest mathematician ever, but I don't have time to play with you. Keep your responses short and try to focus on the topic. Chuckle.

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
Apr 5, 2019, 6:10:41 PM4/5/19
to
On 4/4/2019 2:47 PM, Jew Lover wrote:
> On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 5:34:08 PM UTC-4, konyberg wrote:
>> torsdag 4. april 2019 23.04.17 UTC+2 skrev Jew Lover følgende:
>>> On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 4:07:12 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 4/4/2019 4:23 AM, Jew Lover wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 3:13:18 AM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/3/2019 7:22 PM, Dan Christensen wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 3, 2019 at 5:23:14 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2019 8:03 AM, Jew Lover wrote:
>>>>>>>>> See video to learn more:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/Q-GP-pAoIVo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How can I compute a fractal using your new Math?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Forget fractals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Humm... If he can create a new way to compute, say, the n-ary Mandelbrot
>>>>>> set, then I would be very interested!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> The New Calculus is about 'calculus'. Your fractals do not require calculus. What part of this do you not understand?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regardless, I am still wondering if you can create a new way to compute
>>>> the Mandelbrot.
>>>
>>> I know of Mandelbrot fractals but I can't understand why you are so fascinated by this useless rubbish?
>>
>> It isn't useless rubbish! In fact you can use fractals to compress "self similar" images.
>
>
>> It is used in physics, economy and several situations when mimic the real world.
>
> False.

Have you ever heard of a fractal antennae? Perhaps you should send the
following company an email that tells them that fractals are 100% useless:

https://www.fractenna.com

That is just a single application.


>> Besides; mathematical art is beautiful.
>
> All art that has the property of symmetry is beautiful.

Not all fractals are symmetrical. One example is growing a DLA cluster.

Jew Lover

unread,
Apr 6, 2019, 8:01:25 AM4/6/19
to
Looked at the site and besides the name, it really has zero to do with fractals. It's the same as AI which really has zero to do with artificial intelligence because all it is, is advanced automation. However, gullible people are easily fooled by these PR terms into parting ways with their money.

Nothing new here.

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
Apr 6, 2019, 3:34:14 PM4/6/19
to
Actually, it has everything to do with fractals!

https://www.fractenna.com/nca-cohen-bio.html

Dr. Nathan Cohen uses fractals to make antennas, and other exotic meta
materials. It would be funny for you to tell him that his fractal
antennas have nothing to do with fractals... ;^)

j4n bur53

unread,
Apr 6, 2019, 4:40:32 PM4/6/19
to
Well the brain is kind of fractal. How do you
explain brain convolutions.

Why this spatial composition? Same question for
a super computer, how do you design the

interconnect(*) and place the components?

See also:

"Cortical convolutions—prominent folds on the surface
of the human brain—have a long history of speculation
(1). The claims range from their function as a bodily
cooling system to the attribution of Einstein's genius
to the unusual shape of a single gyrus (the ridge of a
cortical fold). Only recently, with advances in molecular
genetics and brain imaging techniques, has it become
possible to study the development, evolution, and
abnormalities of cerebral convolutions in a scientifically
rigorous manner (2). On page 764 of this issue, Bae et al.
(3) show that a specific gene controls the number of gyri
that form in a region of the cerebral cortex that includes
Broca's area (the major language area). This begins to
pinpoint mechanisms that underlie the development of
specialized regions of the human brain and may be relevant
to understanding human brain evolution."
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/343/6172/744

(*)
Usually optical fibers nowadays.

j4n bur53

unread,
Apr 6, 2019, 4:41:11 PM4/6/19
to
Oh, I forgot, doesn't apply to bird brain.
There is only one cell in a big void.

j4n bur53

unread,
Apr 6, 2019, 4:43:41 PM4/6/19
to
Check out:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Tree

The Fractal Brain Theory
von Wai Tsang
https://books.google.ch/books?id=22LVDAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA479&ots=mtUbTiJJ7s&dq=fractal%20super%20computer&hl=de&pg=PA479#v=onepage&q=fractal%20super%20computer&f=false

On Saturday, April 6, 2019 at 10:40:32 PM UTC+2, j4n bur53 wrote:

Jew Lover

unread,
Apr 6, 2019, 8:46:08 PM4/6/19
to
He does nothing with fractal mathematics. His antennas are very simple designs hardly anything that could be considered a serious fractal.

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
Apr 7, 2019, 2:31:36 AM4/7/19
to
Yet, they work great: A simple design with very powerful properties. The
Koch curve can create a very nice antennae. The Mandelbrot set:

z = z^n + c

is very simple, yet infinitely complex and beautiful when exposed to an
escape time algorihtm...

Zelos Malum

unread,
Apr 8, 2019, 1:38:08 AM4/8/19
to
You are not a mathematician. Never have been, enver will be.

I am on topic constantly. You however refuse to address things and avoid things that expose your ignorance like the plague.

Bill

unread,
Apr 8, 2019, 3:36:04 AM4/8/19
to
You are arguing with an imbecile. He's not going to address the
things that you want because he is simply incapable of doing so.
In the end, the best you could possibly get is a white flag.
Don't waste your time with him.

Jew Lover

unread,
Apr 8, 2019, 7:33:48 AM4/8/19
to
On Monday, April 8, 2019 at 3:36:04 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> Zelos Malum wrote:
> > Den fredag 5 april 2019 kl. 14:39:15 UTC+2 skrev Jew Lover:
>
> >> I know you love being in communication with the greatest mathematician ever, but I don't have time to play with you. Keep your responses short and try to focus on the topic. Chuckle.
> >
> > You are not a mathematician. Never have been, enver will be.
> >
> > I am on topic constantly. You however refuse to address things and avoid things that expose your ignorance like the plague.
> >
>
> You are arguing with an imbecile.

Oh how quickly you lose your civility! Chuckle.

> He's not going to address the
> things that you want because he is simply incapable of doing so.

Perhaps you meant that I am never going to agree with you? Yes, of course!

> In the end, the best you could possibly get is a white flag.

Meh. No need because I have shown him to be gravely ignorant as I have you.

> Don't waste your time with him.

Would be a miracle if I never heard from Malum. Unfortunately his fascination with me shall never cease. :-)) It's the same with you and the local troll Dan Christensen. I am an enigma to you! Chuckle.

Bill

unread,
Apr 8, 2019, 9:04:12 PM4/8/19
to
Jew Lover wrote:

> Would be a miracle if I never heard from Malum. Unfortunately his fascination with me shall never cease. :-)) It's the same with you and the local troll Dan Christensen. I am an enigma to you!

You mean enema.

Chuckle.
>

Zelos Malum

unread,
Apr 9, 2019, 1:25:18 AM4/9/19
to
Nah, I just go against you because you try to pollute peoples minds and I want ot make certain the world sees how stupid you are.

Jew Lover

unread,
Apr 9, 2019, 9:48:12 AM4/9/19
to
You are having the exact opposite effect because people can read what I write and unlike you, they actually think for themselves. I am now almost at 500 subscribers and in the top 100 math channels (number 87 I think). You on the other hand have accomplished nothing in your life. You are a complete and utter failure.

Keep going because you are helping me reveal what a bunch of ignorant, incompetent and stupid assholes the lot of you are in mainstream mythmatics.


Thank you once again!!!!

Jew Lover

unread,
Apr 9, 2019, 9:49:49 AM4/9/19
to
Oh dear, what happened to your civility? Chuckle.

Sorry, I don't want to wrestle with a pig. Too funny! Sigh,...

You hypocritical and vile piece of trash!

>
> Chuckle.
> >

Zelos Malum

unread,
Apr 10, 2019, 1:35:07 AM4/10/19
to
>You are having the exact opposite effect because people can read what I write and unlike you,

I have read it and it is usually the same shit.

The ravings of a mad bitter man that clearly doesn't know what he talks about.

>they actually think for themselves

Classical crank statement, just because I agree with the mainstream does that not mean I have not thought things through.

> I am now almost at 500 subscribers and in the top 100 math channels (number 87 I think). You on the other hand have accomplished nothing in your life. You are a complete and utter failure.

You think that means something? What? You are trying to become Pewdie Pie?

Jew Lover

unread,
Apr 10, 2019, 8:46:14 AM4/10/19
to
On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 1:35:07 AM UTC-4, Zelos Malum wrote:
> >You are having the exact opposite effect because people can read what I write and unlike you,
>
> I have read it and it is usually the same shit.

Liar.

>
> The ravings of a mad bitter man that clearly doesn't know what he talks about.

Wow! That should say a lot about the troll and scammer that you are. If I am a mad and bitter man, why on earth do you bother? Chuckle. Of course, the truth is that you are a bitter failure and projecting yourself onto me. Stop wasting your time challenging my superior intellect and learn some mathematics. You are only making a fool of yourself.

Zelos Malum

unread,
Apr 11, 2019, 1:33:56 AM4/11/19
to
>Liar.

Not at all, I have, that is how I have dismantled it many times.

>Wow! That should say a lot about the troll and scammer that you are.

I do not swindle peopel for money (ergo not a scammer) nor do I antagonize people for my amusement, ergo I am not a troll, you failed both words.

>If I am a mad and bitter man, why on earth do you bother?

You can still cause enough damage to warrant being stopped.

>Of course, the truth is that you are a bitter failure and projecting yourself onto me

Let's see, 43 years you've dealt with this and you still do not get things...failure is you :)

>Stop wasting your time challenging my superior intellect and learn some mathematics.

Superior? HAH!

You cannot even understand definitions, you get them wrong ALL THE TIME

Jew Lover

unread,
Apr 11, 2019, 8:29:48 AM4/11/19
to
On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 1:33:56 AM UTC-4, Zelos Malum wrote:
> >Liar.
>
> Not at all, I have, that is how I have dismantled it many times.

Chuckle. Even the fox says grapes are sour when he can't reach them.

>
> >Wow! That should say a lot about the troll and scammer that you are.
>
> I do not swindle peopel for money (ergo not a scammer) nor do I antagonize people for my amusement, ergo I am not a troll, you failed both words.
>
> >If I am a mad and bitter man, why on earth do you bother?
>
> You can still cause enough damage to warrant being stopped.
>

You pathetic little dishonest and vile bastard. The damage is caused by the LIKES of you and those ignorant Swede cunts who brainwashed you. I am the one who IS and WILL continue to STOP YOU! You are losing on a daily basis and will continue to lose.

Under no circumstances shall I allow you or any of my intellectual inferiors in the mainstream to pervert those wanting to be mathematicians. Your days of deception are over. Chuckle. Wallow in that you filthy pig.

Zelos Malum

unread,
Apr 12, 2019, 1:24:53 AM4/12/19
to
>Chuckle. Even the fox says grapes are sour when he can't reach them.

I still did it, and your response? "Nu uh!"

>You pathetic little dishonest and vile bastard.

Those adjectives describes you and you alone.

>The damage is caused by the LIKES of you and those ignorant Swede cunts who brainwashed you

no, it is you because you are spreading misinformation, you are no better than creationists and flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers.

>I am the one who IS and WILL continue to STOP YOU!

Anti-vaxxers and flatearthers says the same, again you are just like them.

>Under no circumstances shall I allow you or any of my intellectual inferiors in the mainstream to pervert those wanting to be mathematicians.

We do not, we are making them mathematicians, you are the one that ruins them.

Jew Lover

unread,
Apr 12, 2019, 8:34:28 AM4/12/19
to
You're feeling butt-hurt and I haven't even started. I will put the lot of you dumb bastards out to pasture. In due time, in due time...

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
Apr 13, 2019, 5:08:57 AM4/13/19
to
I wonder if you think that everybody in the following documentary is a
total moron, old school:

https://youtu.be/HvXbQb57lsE

;^)

Jew Lover

unread,
Apr 13, 2019, 9:38:42 AM4/13/19
to
Yep. I'd call them morons, but that's the least of their problems. The video is full of lies and misrepresentations.

Jew Lover

unread,
Apr 13, 2019, 9:39:43 AM4/13/19
to
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 5:08:57 AM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
Ultimately all that matters are well formed concepts. If fractals did have a good use, then there is a way to formulate the theory without the rot of complex numbers.

bassam king karzeddin

unread,
Apr 13, 2019, 9:47:37 AM4/13/19
to
So, unfortunately, they are morons and don't know what do they talk about generally, however, everything may still have a better explanation, but no time to explain, since the whole issue of imaginary numbers were simply refuted quite many times but officially not accepted for well-known reasons for sure
BKK

Me

unread,
Apr 13, 2019, 11:29:11 AM4/13/19
to
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 3:39:43 PM UTC+2, Jew Lover wrote:

> [...] the rot of complex numbers.

One of your problem seems to be that you are mentally impaired.

Otherwise you might learn somthing here:
https://plus.maths.org/content/complex-electricity
and here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6nwMAWb_C4

Hint: "electrical engineers make extensive use of complex numbers."

But since you are dumb like shit you are ignorant to that fact.

Me

unread,
Apr 13, 2019, 11:31:55 AM4/13/19
to
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 3:47:37 PM UTC+2, bassam king karzeddin wrote:

> the whole issue of imaginary numbers were [...] refuted quite many times
> but officially not accepted for well-known reasons for sure

Yeah, just like the moon landing hoax, for sure!

Michael Moroney

unread,
Apr 13, 2019, 11:52:31 AM4/13/19
to
Me <franz.fri...@gmail.com> writes:

>On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 3:39:43 PM UTC+2, Jew Lover wrote:

>> [...] the rot of complex numbers.

>One of your problem seems to be that you are mentally impaired.

>Otherwise you might learn somthing here:
>https://plus.maths.org/content/complex-electricity
>and here:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6nwMAWb_C4

>Hint: "electrical engineers make extensive use of complex numbers."

That's right. Look up how EE's use 'reactive power', VARS, reactive
current, power factor etc.

In AC circuit analysis, particular AC power circuits, capacitors produce
imaginary power/imaginary current and inductors consume imaginary power/
imaginary current. Why? Because the math of complex numbers works so well
for AC circuit analysis. The current to a capacitor/inductor is actually
quite real, just out of phase.

I'm an EE, I had to learn and understand all that complex number math.
Luckily I learned complex numbers in high school.

bassam king karzeddin

unread,
Apr 13, 2019, 12:01:44 PM4/13/19
to
But I read previously some expert article by an electrical engineer (I forgot now where) that everything would be the same (even without imaginary numbers)

And the electrical machines would never stop working even if you drop those imaginary numbers to rubbish, FOR SURE
BKK

Michael Moroney

unread,
Apr 13, 2019, 12:29:17 PM4/13/19
to
As I stated, there aren't actually imaginary currents etc., just that the
complex number mathematics works so well for AC power analysis. It can be
done without complex number math, it's just a lot harder to do so.

Disallowing complex number math would be like telling a carpenter he's not
allowed to use a power nailer tool to build a house. He could still build it
using a hammer, but why make things harder for him?
Message has been deleted

Me

unread,
Apr 13, 2019, 1:29:40 PM4/13/19
to
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 6:01:44 PM UTC+2, bassam king karzeddin wrote:

> But I read previously some expert article by an electrical engineer (I forgot
> now where) that everything would be the same (even without imaginary numbers)

Yes and no. It's true from a (purely) THEORETICAL point of view, but not from the PRACTICAL point of view.

Me

unread,
Apr 13, 2019, 1:30:52 PM4/13/19
to
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 5:52:31 PM UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Me <...> writes:

> I'm an EE, I had to learn and understand all that complex number math.

I once had to learn that stuff too (electronic engineering). Pretty much useful. :-P

Jew Lover

unread,
Apr 13, 2019, 3:29:50 PM4/13/19
to
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 11:29:11 AM UTC-4, Me wrote:
> On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 3:39:43 PM UTC+2, Jew Lover wrote:
>
> > [...] the rot of complex numbers.
>
> One of your problem seems to be that you are mentally impaired.

Chuckle. It is YOU who are mentally impaired, you dumb fucking cunt!

>
> Otherwise you might learn somthing here:
> https://plus.maths.org/content/complex-electricity
> and here:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6nwMAWb_C4
>
> Hint: "electrical engineers make extensive use of complex numbers."

Bwaaa haaa haaaaa. They make use of trigonometric identities, not complex numbers, you utter and complete moron!

>
> But since you are dumb like shit you are ignorant to that fact.

But since you are dumb like shit, you can't understand what you read.

Jew Lover

unread,
Apr 13, 2019, 3:30:45 PM4/13/19
to
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 11:52:31 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Me <franz.fri...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 3:39:43 PM UTC+2, Jew Lover wrote:
>
> >> [...] the rot of complex numbers.
>
> >One of your problem seems to be that you are mentally impaired.
>
> >Otherwise you might learn somthing here:
> >https://plus.maths.org/content/complex-electricity
> >and here:
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6nwMAWb_C4
>
> >Hint: "electrical engineers make extensive use of complex numbers."
>
> That's right. Look up how EE's use 'reactive power', VARS, reactive
> current, power factor etc.
>
> In AC circuit analysis, particular AC power circuits, capacitors produce
> imaginary power/imaginary current and inductors consume imaginary power/
> imaginary current. Why? Because the math of complex numbers works so well
> for AC circuit analysis. The current to a capacitor/inductor is actually
> quite real, just out of phase.
>
> I'm an EE,

No. You're a MORONey! Chuckle.

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
Apr 14, 2019, 12:48:22 AM4/14/19
to
On 4/13/2019 12:29 PM, Jew Lover wrote:
> On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 11:29:11 AM UTC-4, Me wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 3:39:43 PM UTC+2, Jew Lover wrote:
>>
>>> [...] the rot of complex numbers.
>>
>> One of your problem seems to be that you are mentally impaired.
>
[...]
>
>>
>> Otherwise you might learn somthing here:
>> https://plus.maths.org/content/complex-electricity
>> and here:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6nwMAWb_C4
>>
>> Hint: "electrical engineers make extensive use of complex numbers."
>
> Bwaaa haaa haaaaa. They make use of trigonometric identities, not complex numbers, you utter and complete moron!

Complex numbers are very convenient, and hold with trig. The argument of
a complex number z is just the atan2(z.imag(), z.real()), very
trigonometric indeed. ;^) For some reason you seem to be slightly
suggesting that one cannot just write:

z = z^2 + c

No... It has to convert to polar from, perform the square, then convert
back to rectangle coordinates to perform the add. The complex number
makes this just, nice and neat.

Jew Lover

unread,
Apr 14, 2019, 9:27:23 AM4/14/19
to
On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 12:48:22 AM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 4/13/2019 12:29 PM, Jew Lover wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 11:29:11 AM UTC-4, Me wrote:
> >> On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 3:39:43 PM UTC+2, Jew Lover wrote:
> >>
> >>> [...] the rot of complex numbers.
> >>
> >> One of your problem seems to be that you are mentally impaired.
> >
> [...]
> >
> >>
> >> Otherwise you might learn somthing here:
> >> https://plus.maths.org/content/complex-electricity
> >> and here:
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6nwMAWb_C4
> >>
> >> Hint: "electrical engineers make extensive use of complex numbers."
> >
> > Bwaaa haaa haaaaa. They make use of trigonometric identities, not complex numbers, you utter and complete moron!
>
> Complex numbers are very convenient, and hold with trig.

Totally useless and meaningless without trig.

> The argument of
> a complex number z is just the atan2(z.imag(), z.real()), very
> trigonometric indeed. ;^)

And it proves what? And is useful for what exactly? I see, NOTHING.

> For some reason you seem to be slightly
> suggesting that one cannot just write:
>
> z = z^2 + c

Nonsense. Don't project your stupid thoughts onto me.

>
> No... It has to convert to polar from, perform the square, then convert
> back to rectangle coordinates to perform the add. The complex number
> makes this just, nice and neat.

Listen idiot, I taught all the theory of complex numbers to my students because it was part of their curricula. You are not telling me anything that isn't glaringly obvious.

Let me remind you: the topic is about i^2 being BAD MATH.

It would be good if you stick to the TOPIC or else start another one where like-minded morons can engage you.

Sorry, but you do have a tendency to be very annoying and I do not tolerate fools gladly.

Zelos Malum

unread,
Apr 15, 2019, 1:27:01 AM4/15/19
to
HAHA!

Yes I am so hurt by a crank that cannot do simple university mathematics!

Zelos Malum

unread,
Apr 15, 2019, 1:27:36 AM4/15/19
to
There has been no refutation of complex numbers because there cannot be any.

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
Apr 15, 2019, 3:31:14 AM4/15/19
to
Did you tell them to use complex numbers for real work? Or, just to
learn about them, then drop it dead because they do not exist, and are
complete and utter garbage?

>
> Let me remind you: the topic is about i^2 being BAD MATH.

i = (0, 1). Whats wrong with that?

[...]

Jew Lover

unread,
Apr 15, 2019, 8:28:29 AM4/15/19
to
I would tell them the facts - that complex numbers are based on ill-formed concepts that are not required in any mathematics.

> Or, just to
> learn about them, then drop it dead because they do not exist, and are
> complete and utter garbage?

Most were smart to reach the conclusion that complex theory is garbage. Don't go to far ... even one of my arch enemies (Prof. David Ullrich) stated here on sci.math in almost his exact words: "my dissertation on complex numbers was the biggest waste of time."

>
> >
> > Let me remind you: the topic is about i^2 being BAD MATH.
>
> i = (0, 1). Whats wrong with that?

(0, 1) is NOT a number and i by definition is NOT equal to (0,1). It is equal to sqrt(-1).

>
> [...]

Me

unread,
Apr 15, 2019, 12:47:03 PM4/15/19
to
On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 2:28:29 PM UTC+2, Jew Lover wrote:

> > i = (0, 1). Whats wrong with that?
> >
> (0, 1) is NOT a number

Sure it is. It's a complex number.

Hint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number#Formal_construction

> and i [...] is NOT equal to (0,1).

Oh, it may be defide EXACTLY as (0,1). Look:

i := (0,1) .

> It is equal to sqrt(-1).

Well, actually:

i^2 = -1 .

And after a sensible definition of "sqrt" (i.e. as the principal root) in the context of complex numbers we might indeed get

sqrt(-1) = i .

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root#Principal_square_root_of_a_complex_number

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
Apr 15, 2019, 4:19:02 PM4/15/19
to
On 4/15/2019 9:46 AM, Me wrote:
> On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 2:28:29 PM UTC+2, Jew Lover wrote:
>
>>> i = (0, 1). Whats wrong with that?
>>>
>> (0, 1) is NOT a number
>
> Sure it is. It's a complex number.

Ya think? Sorry, but John must know this is true as well. Fwiw, playing
around with the sign of the imaginary component of i can be fun... :^)

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
Apr 15, 2019, 4:48:55 PM4/15/19
to
That is actually, _very_ nice of you: wrt not referring to them as
_total_ morons. Thanks John. :^D


[...]

Jew Lover

unread,
Apr 15, 2019, 5:38:16 PM4/15/19
to
On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 12:47:03 PM UTC-4, Me wrote:
> On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 2:28:29 PM UTC+2, Jew Lover wrote:
>
> > > i = (0, 1). Whats wrong with that?
> > >
> > (0, 1) is NOT a number
>
> Sure it is. It's a complex number.

No moron. It's not nor will it ever be.

> > and i [...] is NOT equal to (0,1).
>
> Oh, it may be defide EXACTLY as (0,1). Look:
>
> i := (0,1) .

In which case it is STILL not a number, but a 2-dimensional array.

Hm, last time I checked, these things are entirely different. Only the dullest of fools call both the array and the number "numbers".

>
> > It is equal to sqrt(-1).
>
> Well, actually:
>
> i^2 = -1 .

Bullshit. The squaring process applies ONLY to numbers.

(0,1) x (0,1) is meaningless nonsense.

>
> And after a sensible definition

Idiot. You have no clue what "sensible" means and you wouldn't know what is a definition if your worthless life depended on it.

> of "sqrt" (i.e. as the principal root) in the context of complex numbers we might indeed get

You don't get to choose which root to use in the squaring process and then decide on the fly that it must work in the reverse way too. Only morons like you put the cart before the horse.

>
> sqrt(-1) = i .
>
> See: shit

No thanks.

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
Apr 15, 2019, 5:45:26 PM4/15/19
to
One can store and load data in the roots of complex numbers...

;^)

Jew Lover

unread,
Apr 15, 2019, 5:50:36 PM4/15/19
to
One can do this just as easily without complex objects.

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
Apr 15, 2019, 6:15:20 PM4/15/19
to
Okay. Afaict, it is similar to arithmetic coding. However, we get two
parts to play with in the complex number.

Python

unread,
Apr 15, 2019, 6:29:17 PM4/15/19
to
Utter Crank John Gabriel, aka Jew Lover, wrote:
...
> One can do this just as easily without complex objects.

Speaking of demonstrating things without using complex numbers (which
you do not understand as you do not know much of Algebra, John), what
about the integrals which cannot be computed without using Cauchy
calculus of residues which relies on complex numbers? Are you pretending
you are able to get the value of the integral:

\int_(-inf)^(+inf) 1/(x^2+1)^2 dx (notice: no complex numbers involved)

without refering at all to complex numbers (or objects)?

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
Apr 15, 2019, 6:39:05 PM4/15/19
to
Heck, what about the triplex numbers in the Mandelbulb?

http://bugman123.com/Hypercomplex

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbulb

;^)

Me

unread,
Apr 15, 2019, 6:45:35 PM4/15/19
to
On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 11:38:16 PM UTC+2, Jew Lover wrote:

> In which case it is a[n] array.

Right.

> [...] call [...] the array[s] "numbers".

Good idea!

Let C = {aI + bJ : a,b e IR} ,

where I =

[1 0]
[0 1]

and J =

[0 -1]
[1 0] .

Let's call C /the set of complex numbers/.

Moreover let's define

1 := I and i = J .

Then we get all of complex arithmetic in terms of ordinary matrix operations.

> > actually:
> >
> > i^2 = -1 .
> >
> [...] The squaring process applies ONLY to numbers.

Oh, actually to matrices too.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_multiplication#Powers_of_a_matrix

Michael Moroney

unread,
Apr 16, 2019, 12:08:00 AM4/16/19
to
Just to confuse poor stupid Gabriel, there are also split-complex
numbers, defined as a+bj, where j^2=1 but j is an imaginary number,
independent of the other component, and is not 1 or -1.

They have uses, much fewer than regular complex numbers.

They work somewhat similar to complex numbers with the change that the
imaginary component of complex numbers is i^2 = -1 while the split complex
numbers have j^2 = +1.

And now to make Gabriel's head explode, there are also something called
dual numbers. These are of the form a+bε, where ε^2 = 0, but ε is an
imaginary number independent of the reals, and is not 0. Again, these have
uses but I don't know what they are.

Enjoy,

Zelos Malum

unread,
Apr 16, 2019, 1:30:45 AM4/16/19
to
>I would tell them the facts - that complex numbers are based on ill-formed concepts that are not required in any mathematics.

So you'd decieve them (no surprise)

>(0, 1) is NOT a number and i by definition is NOT equal to (0,1). It is equal to sqrt(-1).

(0,1) is a way to construct the imaginary unit i by imposing an algebra structure on |R x |R and therefore they ARE equal.

You cannot say that definitionalyl that i=sqrt(-1) because the squareroot, before making complex numbers, is not defined for a domain that contains negative numbers. So saying "i is defined as sqrt(-1)" is circular, it assumes their existence to define them.

we can make the complex numbers through many ways, 4 ways at bare minimum.

>In which case it is STILL not a number, but a 2-dimensional array.

Which may be a number if we so choose because keep in mind. Your idea of what a number is is not the one mathematics uses and we are under no obligation within normal mathematics to adhere to your delusions.

>Bullshit. The squaring process applies ONLY to numbers.

Not at all, we can do it with matrices or more generally endomorphisms and much else. Just needs a proper definition for it to be sensical and we got it.

>(0,1) x (0,1) is meaningless nonsense.

As multiplication is defined as (a,b)x(c,d)=(ac-bd,ad+bc) it gives us (0,1) x (0,1)=(-1,0)

which just happens to coincide with our intuitive idea of i^2=-1, strangely enough.

I predict as usual you will not respond to any of the mathematical points because you do not understand these.

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
Apr 16, 2019, 1:48:25 AM4/16/19
to
Big time.

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
Apr 16, 2019, 1:53:29 AM4/16/19
to
On 4/15/2019 9:07 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Just to confuse poor stupid Gabriel, there are also split-complex
> numbers, defined as a+bj, where j^2=1 but j is an imaginary number,
> independent of the other component, and is not 1 or -1.
>
> They have uses, much fewer than regular complex numbers.
>
> They work somewhat similar to complex numbers with the change that the
> imaginary component of complex numbers is i^2 = -1 while the split complex
> numbers have j^2 = +1.

Nice. Fwiw, the half plane to disc conformal mapping really does depend
on the sign on the imaginary component. Above in the disc, below,
projecting out from the surface of the disc.

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
Apr 16, 2019, 2:04:09 AM4/16/19
to
On 4/15/2019 10:53 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 4/15/2019 9:07 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Just to confuse poor stupid Gabriel, there are also split-complex
>> numbers, defined as a+bj, where j^2=1 but j is an imaginary number,
>> independent of the other component, and is not 1 or -1.
>>
>> They have uses, much fewer than regular complex numbers.
>>
>> They work somewhat similar to complex numbers with the change that the
>> imaginary component of complex numbers is i^2 = -1 while the split
>> complex
>> numbers have j^2 = +1.
>
> Nice. Fwiw, the half plane to disc conformal mapping really does depend
> on the sign on the imaginary component. Above in the disc, below,
> projecting out from the surface of the disc.
[...]

Everything is unit, and self normalized. Very nice indeed.

Bill

unread,
Apr 16, 2019, 2:08:52 AM4/16/19
to
B(X) too.. and tile floors.

Zelos Malum

unread,
Apr 17, 2019, 1:30:40 AM4/17/19
to
>One can do this just as easily without complex objects.

Actually, no.

SOME things can be done in real analysis and complex analyise.

However the proofs and methods in complex analysis are in virtually all instances much simpler, shorter and quicker.

Some things are outright impossible in real analysis while very viable in complex.

For complex numbers we can construct them in several ways and all are valid.
1: We can outright define just a unit i^2=-1 and attatch it to the reals, that is |R[i]
2: We can use the ring of polynomials and a quotient in it, namely |R[x]/<x^2+1>
3: We can use the product set of |R x |R, but modify the multiplication to be (a,b)(x,y)=(ax-by,ay+bx)

To name a few, they are all isomorphic and they are all valid.

Jew Lover

unread,
Apr 17, 2019, 8:37:45 AM4/17/19
to
On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 1:30:40 AM UTC-4, Zelos Malum wrote:
> >One can do this just as easily without complex objects.
>
> Actually, no.

Actually YES, without any hesitation.

>
> SOME things can be done in real analysis and complex analyise.

Anything can be done but if its value is shit, then no use.

>
> However the proofs and methods in complex analysis are in virtually all instances much simpler, shorter and quicker.

False. Complex theory is full of rules because it has no solid foundation. i^2 = -1 is syphilitic thinking. As my intellectual inferiors, I do not allow you to define anything because you do not understand what it means for a concept to be well defined.

>
> Some things are outright impossible in real analysis while very viable in complex.

Both are garbage.

>
> For complex numbers we can construct them in several ways and all are valid.


> 1: We can outright define just a unit i^2=-1 and attatch it to the reals, that is |R[i]

Yeah, and a tornado carried Dorothy to Wonderland. Chuckle.


> 2: We can use the ring of polynomials and a quotient in it, namely |R[x]/<x^2+1>

It is still based on i^2, you incorrigible moron.

> 3: We can use the product set of |R x |R, but modify the multiplication to be (a,b)(x,y)=(ax-by,ay+bx)

>
> To name a few, they are all isomorphic and they are all valid.

All invalid syphilitic nonsense without any foundation, except myth.

Me

unread,
Apr 17, 2019, 9:35:08 AM4/17/19
to
On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 2:37:45 PM UTC+2, Jew Lover wrote:

> All invalid syphilitic nonsense without any foundation, except myth.

I hope they treat you well in the mental hospital.

Me

unread,
Apr 17, 2019, 9:37:11 AM4/17/19
to
On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 7:30:40 AM UTC+2, Zelos Malum wrote:

> For complex numbers we can construct them in several ways and all are valid.

> 1: We can outright define just a unit i^2=-1 and attatch it to the reals, that is |R[i]
> 2: We can use the ring of polynomials and a quotient in it, namely |R[x]/<x^2+1>
> 3: We can use the product set of |R x |R, but modify the multiplication to be (a,b)(x,y)=(ax-by,ay+bx)
>
> To name a few, they are all isomorphic and they are all valid.

Another one:

4: Let C := {aI + bJ : a,b e IR} ,

where I :=

[1 0]
[0 1]

and J :=

[0 -1]
[1 0] .

Zelos Malum

unread,
Apr 18, 2019, 1:47:45 AM4/18/19
to
>Actually YES, without any hesitation.

Actually, no with no hesitation :) not all can be done in rael analysis.

>Anything can be done but if its value is shit, then no use.

How fortunate for us that complex analysis has been used successfully in physics, engineering and much else then.

>False. Complex theory is full of rules because it has no solid foundation.

It has no more rules than real analysis. It's theorems are however different.

>i^2 = -1 is syphilitic thinking. As my intellectual inferiors, I do not allow you to define anything because you do not understand what it means for a concept to be well defined.

I am intellectually superior to you, I know what well-defined is in mathematics, what you think it is is wholy irrelevant.


>Both are garbage.

Both are valid and as far as we know, contradiction free.

>Yeah, and a tornado carried Dorothy to Wonderland. Chuckle.

And? That has nothign to do with this.

>It is still based on i^2, you incorrigible moron.

Nope, it is based on that the polynomial x^2+1 exist and that |R[x] is a principal ideal domain.

>All invalid syphilitic nonsense without any foundation, except myth.

They are all valid and correct. You being unable to understand abstract algebra and such is not our issue.

You cannot point out a single flaw in any of them because you do not understand how one construct structures in mathematics.

Jew Lover

unread,
Apr 18, 2019, 8:17:48 AM4/18/19
to
Trying to talk sense to you is like trying to teach a brick wall. Futile.

Zelos Malum

unread,
Apr 23, 2019, 1:31:02 AM4/23/19
to
You got us mixed up again.

I have shown time and time again to be much more knowledgable in mathematics and you hate that

bassam king karzeddin

unread,
May 28, 2019, 4:23:11 AM5/28/19
to
How can one classify those believers of complex number and infinities can truly solve any serious issues? wonder!

They were all proven as pure old permissive human rubbish concepts for sure

Or don't you read or if you do so they never understand anything, sure

BKK

Python

unread,
May 28, 2019, 5:07:18 AM5/28/19
to
King of Idiots bASSam Karzeddin fighting against calculus. LOL.



Jew Lover

unread,
May 30, 2019, 7:45:40 AM5/30/19
to
On Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 4:23:11 AM UTC-4, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 1:29:17 AM UTC+3, Python wrote:
> > Utter Crank John Gabriel, aka Jew Lover, wrote:
> > ...
> > > One can do this just as easily without complex objects.
> >
> > Speaking of demonstrating things without using complex numbers (which
> > you do not understand as you do not know much of Algebra, John), what
> > about the integrals which cannot be computed without using Cauchy
> > calculus of residues which relies on complex numbers? Are you pretending
> > you are able to get the value of the integral:
> >
> > \int_(-inf)^(+inf) 1/(x^2+1)^2 dx (notice: no complex numbers involved)
> >
> > without refering at all to complex numbers (or objects)?
>
> How can one classify those believers of complex number and infinities can truly solve any serious issues? wonder!

I've observed in my life's journey that the most ignorant mainstream academics are often those who obstinately persist the hardest - failures like Zelos Malum, Jean Pierre Messager (python/jpm/ybm and many other aliases), Dan Christen (psychotic troll), Jan Burse, "Me" (Franz ...?) and many others.

When any math educator says "It's just a definition", you can know for certain that he is an idiot because there are no axioms (beliefs) or postulates in mathematics. Definitions are ALL-important.

In my career, I have done everything to perfection or pretty close. The thought that someone who came after me might criticize my code used to concern me. So I would go to great lengths in order to ensure my deliverables were of the topmost quality. In many cases I would fix the disastrous failures of those like Jean Pierre Messager (Python) and other morons on this forum. I never met my equal in software development. I can't tell you how many times idiot programmers used dynamic memory incorrectly and caused millions of dollars in losses as a result of leaked memory, incorrect indexing, etc.

My desire for perfection carries through into mathematics and in all aspects of my life. Although I became very ill during my work in China, I still look better shirtless than most 25 year olds and I am 57 years old! So, even the physical aspect is just as important as mental health.

Given that most mainstream academics suffer from inflated egos and imagine they know far more than they actually do (www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds), it is not surprising that they are also guilty of bias in knowledge acquisition. What this bias means is that they will choose to espouse junk knowledge because it appeals to their birdbrains, almost like a low IQ child who loves the sound of an empty tin drum being beaten.

They love to say that i^2 = -1 is "just a definition". That is not even wrong because as written, it is an *identity* based on an ill-formed concept, viz. i = sqrt(-1).

But how can any "number" or "magnitude" be negative when it is squared?!

Look:

(+ve) x (+ve) = (+ve)
(-ve) x (-ve) = (+ve)

But what can be the solution in the following?

(?) x (?) = (-ve)

The BIG STUPID has never paid attention to detail even though you'll often hear them talking about it.

Whatever satisfies (?) x (?) = (-ve) must be a *number*. "i=sqrt(-1)" is not a number but a junk concept.

The operation of squaring does not even involve what comes under the radical:

idiot = (sqrt(idiot))^2

However, in mathematics we have to ensure that we are working with the correct objects. sqrt(-1) is not a valid object because it does not exist as a well-defined concept. We can prove that (+ve) x (+ve) = (+ve) and (-ve) x (-ve) = (+ve), but there is no proof for this garbage: (sqrt(-1) ?) x (sqrt(-1) ?) = (-ve).

One has no option but to accept such (ill-formed) definitions/identities as belief which has no place in rational thinking. The BIG STUPID (mainstream academia) is big on this practice. You can't fix stupid. Imagine trying to convince Donald Trump that he is a fool! Same with these morons You cannot convince them because they are not able to comprehend reason due to their bias in knowledge acquisition, that is, their mythmatics religion.

Sergeio

unread,
May 30, 2019, 9:47:48 AM5/30/19
to
On 5/30/2019 6:45 AM, Jew Lover wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 4:23:11 AM UTC-4, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 1:29:17 AM UTC+3, Python wrote:
>>> Utter Crank John Gabriel, aka Jew Lover, wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> One can do this just as easily without complex objects.
>>>
>>> Speaking of demonstrating things without using complex numbers (which
>>> you do not understand as you do not know much of Algebra, John), what
>>> about the integrals which cannot be computed without using Cauchy
>>> calculus of residues which relies on complex numbers? Are you pretending
>>> you are able to get the value of the integral:
>>>
>>> \int_(-inf)^(+inf) 1/(x^2+1)^2 dx (notice: no complex numbers involved)
>>>
>>> without refering at all to complex numbers (or objects)?
>>
>> How can one classify those believers of complex number and infinities can truly solve any serious issues? wonder!
>
> I've observed in my life's journey



<snip crap>



nothing

Me

unread,
May 30, 2019, 8:41:43 PM5/30/19
to
On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 1:45:40 PM UTC+2, Jew Lover wrote:

> They love to say that i^2 = -1 is "just a definition".

Actually, it's *not* a proper definition.

i := (0, 1) (*)

is a definition. From (*) and the definition of multiplication (in C) we can derive

i * i = (-1, 0) .

If we adopt the convention just to write x instead of (x, 0) (for x e IR), we get

i * i = -1 .

> But how can any "number" [...] be negative when it is squared?!

It *can't* if it is a _real_ number. But it *can*, if it is an _imaginary_ number.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number

> (+ve) x (+ve) = (+ve)
> (-ve) x (-ve) = (+ve)

Right, for ve e IR.

> But what can be the solution in the following?
>
> (?) x (?) = (-ve)

Depends: If ve e IR, ve <= 0, then

? = sqrt(-ve) . (Hence ? e IR.)

If ve e IR, ve > 0, then

? = i * sqrt(ve) . (Hence ? e C.)

> Whatever satisfies (?) x (?) = (-ve) must be a *number*.

Well, x e IR or x e C *is* a number. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_number
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number

Now...

> sqrt(-1) is a valid object because it [can be introduced] as a well-defined
> concept.

Right. It can be defined (in C) as the principal value of the square root of -1.

Then we get

sqrt(-1) = i

and hence

sqrt(-1) * sqrt(-1) = i * i = -1 .

> We can prove that (+ve) x (+ve) = (+ve) and (-ve) x (-ve) = (+ve),

for each and every ve in IR. Right!

> and there is a proof for this equation: sqrt(-1) x sqrt(-1) = -1.

Right, see the derivation from above.

> One has no option but to accept such [...] definitions/identities as
> [part of] rational thinking.

Right.

Well done, John.

Jew Lover

unread,
May 31, 2019, 8:45:59 PM5/31/19
to
On Thursday, 30 May 2019 20:41:43 UTC-4, Me wrote:
> On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 1:45:40 PM UTC+2, Jew Lover wrote:
>
> > They love to say that i^2 = -1 is "just a definition".
>
> Actually, it's *not* a proper definition.

Of course it's not. It's nonsense.

>
> i := (0, 1) (*)
>

It still does not help your cause even if defined this way, because unlike a number, it measures nothing. As you stated it, it denotes a vector or matrix.

> is a definition. From (*) and the definition of multiplication (in C) we can derive
>
> i * i = (-1, 0) .

LMAO. Given any (p,q) and (s,t), the multiplication is defined in bogus complex theory as ps + qt. So (0, 1) x (0, 1) = 1, not -1 which is derived from the definition:

i = sqrt(-1)

>
> If we adopt the convention just to write x instead of (x, 0) (for x e IR), we get

That sentence is just hand waving bullshit which proves zero and is irrelevant.

>
> i * i = -1 .

How, you moron?! How????? If i = (0,1) then (0,1) x (0,1) = 1 by the bogus definition, you IMBECILE! You only get i^2 = -1 by defining i = sqrt(-1).

>
> > But how can any "number" [...] be negative when it is squared?!
>
> It *can't* if it is a _real_ number. But it *can*, if it is an _imaginary_ number.

Moron! Save beliefs and decrees for idiots like you. Don't repeat shit over and over again.

There is no such thing as real number, nor "imaginary number" - it is ill-formed crap.

>
> See: SHIT
>
> > (+ve) x (+ve) = (+ve)
> > (-ve) x (-ve) = (+ve)
>
> Right, for ve e IR.

No moron. For ve e IM, where IM is any magnitude.

>
<irrelevant crap>

bassam king karzeddin

unread,
Jun 11, 2019, 11:47:47 AM6/11/19
to
On Wednesday, April 3, 2019 at 6:03:25 PM UTC+3, Jew Lover wrote:
> See video to learn more:
>
> https://youtu.be/Q-GP-pAoIVo

Everybody must learn this too OLD and so silly fiction in mathematics and so urgently
BKK
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages