Scientists. PAH!
Discussion
R300will said:
so you use an irrational number that doesn't exist apart from in the mathematicians mind to make a calculation work. sounds accurate 
Not irrational (that's a number that can't be represented as a fraction IIRC). Imaginary is the term you're looking for, and yes, I realise how that term plays to your argument.Again I return to the (false) concept that science somehow needs to be easily understood and "make common sense". A very human conceit.
Edited by ewenm on Sunday 18th March 22:30
R300will said:
so you use an irrational number that doesn't exist apart from in the mathematicians mind to make a calculation work. sounds accurate
I almost thought you were joking when you brought it up, but it appears not. You mean imaginary not irrational. All mathematics 'exists only in the mathematicians mind'. It's an abstract construct. You can use it to describe the physical world but it doesn't really 'exist'. Imaginary numbers are pretty vital to describe all kinds of physical phenomenon that do 'exist'. Not sure how this really fits in with your statement about maths confusing itself.
hairykrishna said:
R300will said:
so you use an irrational number that doesn't exist apart from in the mathematicians mind to make a calculation work. sounds accurate
I almost thought you were joking when you brought it up, but it appears not. You mean imaginary not irrational. All mathematics 'exists only in the mathematicians mind'. It's an abstract construct. You can use it to describe the physical world but it doesn't really 'exist'. Imaginary numbers are pretty vital to describe all kinds of physical phenomenon that do 'exist'. Not sure how this really fits in with your statement about maths confusing itself.
hairykrishna said:
R300will said:
so you use an irrational number that doesn't exist apart from in the mathematicians mind to make a calculation work. sounds accurate
I almost thought you were joking when you brought it up, but it appears not. You mean imaginary not irrational. All mathematics 'exists only in the mathematicians mind'. It's an abstract construct. You can use it to describe the physical world but it doesn't really 'exist'. Imaginary numbers are pretty vital to describe all kinds of physical phenomenon that do 'exist'. Not sure how this really fits in with your statement about maths confusing itself.
what i meant by my statement was the following, if mathematicians have to use imaginary numbers to explain the things around them, numbers that don't work in their own field, then sureley there is a flaw with the rules of mathematics or something. Finding a gap in an equation and filling it with a made up number doesn't sound all that good does it. Hence my jibe based comment about them confusing themselves.Admittedly i dont know the first thing about maths, i am much more scientifically minded as i don't like the fact that maths doesn't realy exist so i was just poking a bit of fun at it.
R300will said:
Calm down dear! i was having a bit of a jibe at maths to be honest but seen as though i have upset the head of maths, desperate to defend his noble art, i appologise what i meant by my statement was the following, if mathematicians have to use imaginary numbers to explain the things around them, numbers that don't work in their own field, then sureley there is a flaw with the rules of mathematics or something. Finding a gap in an equation and filling it with a made up number doesn't sound all that good does it. Hence my jibe based comment about them confusing themselves.
Admittedly i dont know the first thing about maths, i am much more scientifically minded as i don't like the fact that maths doesn't realy exist so i was just poking a bit of fun at it.
Don't worry about the word "imaginary" - it's simply there to distinguish it from the "Real" numbers. The square root of minus 1 is defined as i and if used with a real component we get into the fun world* of complex numbers. These 2 dimensional numbers (if plotted in a cartesian fashion) allow us to play with much more interesting transformations than those available to the simple "real" numbers. Of course adding a third component (j) helps spread our number theory onto a third dimension and is usual for proving such interesting ideas as Fermat's last theorem. what i meant by my statement was the following, if mathematicians have to use imaginary numbers to explain the things around them, numbers that don't work in their own field, then sureley there is a flaw with the rules of mathematics or something. Finding a gap in an equation and filling it with a made up number doesn't sound all that good does it. Hence my jibe based comment about them confusing themselves.Admittedly i dont know the first thing about maths, i am much more scientifically minded as i don't like the fact that maths doesn't realy exist so i was just poking a bit of fun at it.
* for a given value of fun
R300will said:
Calm down dear! i was having a bit of a jibe at maths to be honest but seen as though i have upset the head of maths, desperate to defend his noble art, i appologise what i meant by my statement was the following, if mathematicians have to use imaginary numbers to explain the things around them, numbers that don't work in their own field, then sureley there is a flaw with the rules of mathematics or something. Finding a gap in an equation and filling it with a made up number doesn't sound all that good does it. Hence my jibe based comment about them confusing themselves.
Admittedly i dont know the first thing about maths, i am much more scientifically minded as i don't like the fact that maths doesn't realy exist so i was just poking a bit of fun at it.
The thing is, that's total nonsense. The idea that imaginary numbers 'don't work in their own field' is flat out wrong. See Euler's formula. They fit into the framework of maths beautifully. what i meant by my statement was the following, if mathematicians have to use imaginary numbers to explain the things around them, numbers that don't work in their own field, then sureley there is a flaw with the rules of mathematics or something. Finding a gap in an equation and filling it with a made up number doesn't sound all that good does it. Hence my jibe based comment about them confusing themselves.Admittedly i dont know the first thing about maths, i am much more scientifically minded as i don't like the fact that maths doesn't realy exist so i was just poking a bit of fun at it.
Being 'scientifically minded' but not having the first idea about maths is a bit of a contradiction to be honest. Maths is the language of the physical sciences.
R300will said:
if mathematicians have to use imaginary numbers to explain the things around them, numbers that don't work in their own field, then sureley there is a flaw with the rules of mathematics or something. Finding a gap in an equation and filling it with a made up number doesn't sound all that good does it.
Only if you believe the universe should make "common sense". I'd have thought that things like quantum particle behaviour would get rid of that opinion.Alternatively look at Newton's work - it works for the vast majority of cases but doesn't work for near-lightspeed. Is that a problem with physics or an opportunity to refine the theory? Relativity provides the answer and reduces to Newtonian dynamics at speeds << c.
So going back to sqrt(-1). Not solvable in 1 dimensional mathematics. Does that mean the rules of maths are wrong or that we're looking in too few dimensions for the answer? Looking in 2 dimensions gives possible answers (i and -i) that accurately describe some parts of reality. The standard "real" number line from -infinity to +infinity is a subset of the 2-dimensional plane of complex numbers.
The rules of maths are fine with square roots of negative numbers. Just because it isn't taught on cbeebies doesn't mean it isn't right.
and of different sizes! Number theory around infinities is rather complicated, thanks carmonk said:
Yes, scientists make everything up and just lark around having competitions as to who can produce the most outrageous assertion. In this case it's clear that one scientist got his cock out and another remarked it looked like a tiny pathetic eel, and from that hilarity they concocted a tale about people descending from eels with some stuff about DNA mixed in. But all this is OK, because it's not as if science has given you everything you own, provided you with the lifestyle that you lead or that you probably owe your life to science as well as the lives of your family.
thats what statistics are for lolGassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff