 | | |
| From: |
Ted Erikson | 2001-01-31 15:56:50 |
| Subject: | Tetrahedral thought)s |
| Comment: | Length that depends on two positions for which one 'imagines' the first position does not change while retrieving a measurement for the second must therefore be represented by a real and an imaginary component, viz
L=a + bi (where 'b' is usually zero but not necessarily always!)
Check out http://www.sdogv.com 'tech links' |
| | |
| From: |
void | 2002-05-13 16:55:25 |
| Subject: | what's the point of a subject |
| Comment: | is math something there is or do we create it? is it our twisted chemical chain reactor that we call brain that has the obsessive urge to control and understand? if you start looking for truths, for certainties, explanations,... in how far are they to be believed? The truth is theyre not and even that aint. no math or any science or even every metafysical theorie can be believed because theyre all just speculations, simple subjective mindbits. Though i do believe we will be able to understand and control the life we have, the world around us. But in how far is a simulation of a simulation different from the simulation itself. Maybe we're not even here... oh hell whatever. i should stop wining... life = void. so fly around before you crash appleboy. (by the way, are you catholic? or you just got something going on with eve and her apple-snake mutant?...) just this last thingy, saw you like science things... ever heard of a fractal? you know that thing you can always zoom in on and always keep finding the same pattern? What if our universe was part of some fractal, what if we could zoom inside an atom and make it so big that we actually find a new universe... maybe we're full of these universes... oh man im sick |
| | |
| From: |
Jake | 2003-05-16 23:38:29 |
| Subject: | imaginary numbers |
| Comment: | I feel the concept of imaginary numbers is flawed and that real progress in basic mathematics and physics will not occur until we redefine the groundrules, eliminating this problem. |
| | |
| From: |
Kyle Baird | 2003-09-09 18:47:24 |
| Subject: | fibnocci sequence |
| Comment: | fiboncci sequence comes to Theta or 1.66666667 off into infinite, i believe that this is the reason why algebra cannot solve the 16-dimsional. according to pythagros,'mathmatics is the language of nature.' |
| | |
| From: |
Clayton Carter | 2003-11-21 17:06:40 |
| Subject: | Jake is on to something |
| Comment: | The rest of you are nutz.Imaginary numbers are a result of our poor understanding of mathematics. The mathematics of the universe is so complex even the greatest thinkers can hardly master it. Also a lot of people like to play the maybe game, well maybe all these dimensions we cannot precieve are still acting out in the universe. And maybe these dimensions contain forces we are not familiar with, but these forces act out in our dimensional understanding. and we can interperate the result of these forces by i. . . Maybe. |
| | |
| From: |
daa | 2004-03-01 08:24:28 |
| Subject: | physics |
| Comment: | wot da fck hav i just read |
| | |
| From: |
Stephen | 2004-03-26 19:27:39 |
| Subject: | Numbers |
| Comment: | Could some one please send me an email explaining what numbers actually are? How can there be a such thing as an imaginary number if you could argue that all numbers in them selves are imaginary? By this i mean as follows- numbers like words are not a reality only a labell. if you take the word wall for example. What you see is not a wall r more importantly what is there is not a wall. Words labell they don't explain. Numbers are a form of words are they not,so what are numbers? What are they at their essence?i know that an exact answer is impossible because of what i said eariler but if some one could help explain to me what maths actually is? |
| | |
| From: |
Thu P. Nguyen | 2004-04-19 21:20:20 |
| Subject: | On 'existence' of imaginary numbers |
| Comment: | Imaginary numbers are consistent with a Brouwerian
outlook on mathematics. With some thinking, they
might even be seen on Hilbert's side as well, in
that they may behave in terms of 'P or not P.'
Imaginary numbers exists in the intuitive sense because
they are the free creation of the human mind. They are constructed and constructive entities.
However, if you are thinking of 'existence' in terms of
Plato, well, then you are stuck. I often tell my students,
certain solutions to mathematics is when we bracket out metaphysical truth and just get things done. Resolve it. don't look at truth. There is no metaphysics of truth, just in the practical application of the numbers. |
| | |
| From: |
Thu | 2004-04-19 21:21:41 |
| Subject: | Existence of Imaginary Numbers Con't |
| Comment: | Numbers do not explain. They are abstractions. Abstractions are not concrete things. They do not cause. They do not explain. They are tools to describe. Tools can exist as things merely 'used' in the theoretical sense, and things 'useful' in the practical sense. Plato has no part in either side of the coin. Whether it is theoretical or not, truth is what we make of it.
I alway see mathematical/logical puzzles in this way. It is sleazy, but effective. Think of it as a con game. Within a con game, the con artist makes the rules and always win. The rules do not rule us. We rule them. How could they? They are but abstractions. They can only describe what I imagine to be. They do not explain. They cannot cause things to happen any more than a unicorn.
If however, you actually believe that they rule us as in the Platonic universe, then you never left the middle ages when the magicians and Gematrians lived. They actually believed through their necromancy that these numbers actually rule their lives. What superstition!!! Yet, how many of our mathematicians still believe in Plato's mysticism hogwash. |
| | |
| From: |
alex | 2007-04-25 23:30:57 |
| Subject: | imaginary numbers part of reality? |
| Comment: | i think that reality is as much of a construction as imaginary numbers. thus my question would be, how can a bridge be constructed to make imaginary numbers a part of reality? what kind of argument could be constructed to deny imaginary numbers this status? whose reality are imaginary numbers a part of, and whose aren't they? who desires this more than others, and why? what social institutions could shape the decisions and desires of these people? are real numbers part of imagination? is reality part of imagination? or is imagination constructed? is construction imagined? are all numbers imagined? |
| | |
| From: |
doug | 2007-10-24 17:16:39 |
| Subject: | I think you all need to lie down 4 a bit |
| Comment: | How many imaginary numbers does it take to change a lightbulb? |
| | |
