undefined

points

[-]

Im saying that the definition of polar coordinates for complex numbers using e instead of any other number is irrelevant to the use of complex numbers, but its inclusion in Eulers identity makes it seem like a i is a number rather than an attribute. And if you assume i is a number, it leads to one thinking that that you can define the complex field C. But my argument is that Eulers identity is not really relevant in the sense of what the complex numbers are used for, so i is not a number but rather a tool.

by srean4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

We as humans had a similar argument regarding 0. The thought was that zero is not a number, just a notational trick to denote that nothing is there (in the place value system of the Mesopotamians)

But then in India we discovered that it can really participate with the the other bonafide numbers as a first class citizen of numbers.

It is not longer a place holder but can be the argument of the binary functions, PLUS, MINUS, MULTIPLY and can also be the result of these functions.

With i we have a similar observation, that it can indeed be allowed as a first class citizen as a number. Addition and multiplication can accept them as their arguments as well as their RHS. It's a number, just a different kind.

by jonahx4 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

But you can define the complex field C. And it has many benefits, like making the fundamental theorem of algebra work out. I'm not seeing the issue?

On a similar note, why insist that "i" (or a negative, for that matter) is an "attribute" on a number rather than an extension of the concept of number? In one sense, this is a just a definitional choice, so I don't think either conception is right or wrong. But I'm still not getting your preference for the attribute perspective. If anything, especially in the case of negative numbers, it seems less elegant than just allowing the negatives to be numbers?

by ActorNightly3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Sure, you can define any field to make your math work out. None of the interpretations are wrong per say, the question is whether or not they are useful.

The point of contention that leads to 3 interpretations is whether you assume i acts like a number. My argument is that people generally answer yes, because of Eulers identity (which is often stated as example of mathematical beauty).

My argument is that i does not act like a number, it acts more like an operator. And with i being an operator, C is not really a thing.