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 2
i ... 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