Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Big Bang theory
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 25 (24020)
11-24-2002 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by John
11-24-2002 12:03 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by joz:

Lots of physics uses i (the square root of -1) bud are you saying that you think they are all in error because of that use?
Does this bias of yours apply to any other set of nubers or is it just imaginary (and presumably complex) numbers that you object to?

forgiven said that imaginary numbers are 'totally satisfying' not 'unsatisfying' But I am a bit suspicious. It is an odd sentence structure and word choice, imho, if it is not a typo. So, forgiven, some clarification?

i just noticed this.. yeah it was a typo alright... i'll go ahead and answer joz from here also, quoted above yours, and also his post that appears below yours... i'm sure he understands all that hawking has said far better than i, but he objects to my use of the term 'imaginary numbers'... hawking himself used the term
mathmaticians invented imaginary numbers to (originally, i think) answer the question "since the square root of 4 is 2 and -2, what is the square root of -4?"... so they gave a variable, i, the value of the square root of -1, which means the square root of -4 equals 2i ... one application of the use of imaginary numbers lies in creating or tracing imaginary time
now someone will object to the term 'imaginary time' i'm sure.. that's fine with me, all i said in my origianl post was that without the use of imaginary numbers, an actual infinite can't exist in time

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by John, posted 11-24-2002 12:03 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by John, posted 11-24-2002 10:52 AM forgiven has replied
 Message 18 by joz, posted 11-24-2002 10:56 AM forgiven has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 25 (24029)
11-24-2002 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by forgiven
11-24-2002 10:22 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
he objects to my use of the term 'imaginary numbers'... hawking himself used the term
It isn't the use of the term but the criticism of the mathematics to which joz was reacting.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by forgiven, posted 11-24-2002 10:22 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by joz, posted 11-24-2002 10:59 AM John has replied
 Message 22 by forgiven, posted 11-24-2002 11:33 AM John has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 25 (24030)
11-24-2002 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by forgiven
11-24-2002 10:22 AM


So let me get this straight, do you feel that imaginary (and hence complex) numbers are merely some ad hoc invention?
If not why are they unsatisfying?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by forgiven, posted 11-24-2002 10:22 AM forgiven has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 25 (24031)
11-24-2002 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by John
11-24-2002 10:52 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
he objects to my use of the term 'imaginary numbers'... hawking himself used the term
It isn't the use of the term but the criticism of the mathematics to which joz was reacting.

It was actually his assumption that the imaginary in imaginary numbers should be interpreted in its colloquial manner that I was trying to correct....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by John, posted 11-24-2002 10:52 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by John, posted 11-24-2002 11:06 AM joz has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 25 (24034)
11-24-2002 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by joz
11-24-2002 10:59 AM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
It was actually his assumption that the imaginary in imaginary numbers should be interpreted in its colloquial manner that I was trying to correct....
I see nothing in the thread indicating this, and much in the thread indicating the opposite.
Why not just restate your position here and we'll go from there?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by joz, posted 11-24-2002 10:59 AM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by joz, posted 11-24-2002 11:19 AM John has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 25 (24040)
11-24-2002 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by John
11-24-2002 11:06 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
I see nothing in the thread indicating this, and much in the thread indicating the opposite.
Why not just restate your position here and we'll go from there?

How about calling them make believe numbers? Sounds like he is taking the use of imaginary to be equivalent to its colloquial form, to me anyway.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by John, posted 11-24-2002 11:06 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by John, posted 11-24-2002 11:44 AM joz has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 25 (24042)
11-24-2002 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by John
11-24-2002 10:52 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
he objects to my use of the term 'imaginary numbers'... hawking himself used the term
It isn't the use of the term but the criticism of the mathematics to which joz was reacting.

i wasn't criticizing the mathmatics though, i was simply trying to show that an attempt to prove the existence of an actual infinite set of past events depended on imaginary time which in turn depended on imaginary numbers... and if joz prefers 'make believe' to 'imaginary', that's fine with me

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by John, posted 11-24-2002 10:52 AM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by joz, posted 11-24-2002 11:45 AM forgiven has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 25 (24046)
11-24-2002 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by joz
11-24-2002 11:19 AM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
quote:
Originally posted by John:
I see nothing in the thread indicating this, and much in the thread indicating the opposite.
Why not just restate your position here and we'll go from there?

How about calling them make believe numbers? Sounds like he is taking the use of imaginary to be equivalent to its colloquial form, to me anyway.....

Yeah, I know. That's what it seems like to me too, though forgiven is saying it ain't so. Of course, this leave me with no idea what forgiven is trying to argue.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by joz, posted 11-24-2002 11:19 AM joz has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 25 (24047)
11-24-2002 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by forgiven
11-24-2002 11:33 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
i wasn't criticizing the mathmatics though, i was simply trying to show that an attempt to prove the existence of an actual infinite set of past events depended on imaginary time which in turn depended on imaginary numbers... and if joz prefers 'make believe' to 'imaginary', that's fine with me
Once again that sense of surreality creeps in....
Of course calling them make believe numbers wouldn`t bother you you have already done it....
But how on earth did you manage to twist this post
quote:
How about calling them make believe numbers? Sounds like he is taking the use of imaginary to be equivalent to its colloquial form, to me anyway.....
replying to Johns skepticism that you had misinterpreted the imaginary in imaginary numbers into a call from me to rename imaginary numbers make believe numbers? You, as you are won`t to do, ignored the context in which I posted....
And yes you do seem to have a problem with the use of i in mathmatics otherwise you wouldn`t be asserting that their utilisation makes a work unsatisfying....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by forgiven, posted 11-24-2002 11:33 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by forgiven, posted 11-24-2002 11:53 AM joz has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 25 (24049)
11-24-2002 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by joz
11-24-2002 11:45 AM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
And yes you do seem to have a problem with the use of i in mathmatics otherwise you wouldn`t be asserting that their utilisation makes a work unsatisfying....
this is imho an absurd statement... can't their utilization be perfectly satisfying in one application and unsatisfying in another? or are you saying that since there are valid instances where the use of i exists, all such uses are valid?
can we or can we not traverse a series of past events?
[This message has been edited by forgiven, 11-24-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by joz, posted 11-24-2002 11:45 AM joz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024