I recall hearing a quote from the guy that coined the term “imaginary number”, and how he regretted that term because it conveys a conceptualization of fiction. IIRC, he would rather that they would have been called “orthogonal numbers” (in a different plane) and said that they were far more real that people tend to hold in their mind. I think he said “they are as real as negative numbers” along the same lines of one not being able to hold a negative quantity of apples, for example.
The stray shower thought (beyond simply juxtaposing the discordant terms of ‘imaginary’ and ‘real’) was that infinity by contrast is a much weaker and fantastic concept. It destroys meaningful operations it comes into contact with, and requires invisible and growing workarounds to maintain (e.g. “countably” infinite vs “uncountably” infinite) which smells of fantasy, philosophically speaking.
It destroys meaningful operations it comes into contact with, and requires invisible and growing workarounds to maintain (e.g. “countably” infinite vs “uncountably” infinite) which smells of fantasy, philosophically speaking.
This isn’t always true. The convergent series comes to mind, where an infinite summation can be resolved to a finite number.
Furthermore, it is meant to highlight the fact that people gleefully embrace the concept of infinity, but try their hardest to avoid and depreciate the concept of imaginary numbers. It would appear to me that the bias ought to be reversed.
I recall hearing a quote from the guy that coined the term “imaginary number”, and how he regretted that term because it conveys a conceptualization of fiction. IIRC, he would rather that they would have been called “orthogonal numbers” (in a different plane) and said that they were far more real that people tend to hold in their mind. I think he said “they are as real as negative numbers” along the same lines of one not being able to hold a negative quantity of apples, for example.
The stray shower thought (beyond simply juxtaposing the discordant terms of ‘imaginary’ and ‘real’) was that infinity by contrast is a much weaker and fantastic concept. It destroys meaningful operations it comes into contact with, and requires invisible and growing workarounds to maintain (e.g. “countably” infinite vs “uncountably” infinite) which smells of fantasy, philosophically speaking.
This isn’t always true. The convergent series comes to mind, where an infinite summation can be resolved to a finite number.
Furthermore, it is meant to highlight the fact that people gleefully embrace the concept of infinity, but try their hardest to avoid and depreciate the concept of imaginary numbers. It would appear to me that the bias ought to be reversed.
Better term. But using o as the imaginary unit would be even worse than i.