42
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 141:
Line 141: + +
Conservapedia:Critical Thinking in Math (view source)
Revision as of 23:50, September 13, 2008
, 23:50, September 13, 2008Response to Foxtrot
::::Have you ever plugged in a <math>60\sqrt{-1}</math> watt light bulb? Isn't [[current]] always a real value, same with money, spectroscopy values, bacteria populations, etc. Taking integrals to compute things only needs integration over real values. Protein folding and DNA can be studied using real manifolds, etc. Pretty much the entire subjects can be understood entirely in the setting of real numbers and real geometry. The only time that complex numbers enter into "computations" is because they were artificially introduced there. Just because people teach you to use complex numbers doesn't mean it's necessary (and usually, it isn't). -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 19:04, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Have you ever plugged in a <math>60\sqrt{-1}</math> watt light bulb? Isn't [[current]] always a real value, same with money, spectroscopy values, bacteria populations, etc. Taking integrals to compute things only needs integration over real values. Protein folding and DNA can be studied using real manifolds, etc. Pretty much the entire subjects can be understood entirely in the setting of real numbers and real geometry. The only time that complex numbers enter into "computations" is because they were artificially introduced there. Just because people teach you to use complex numbers doesn't mean it's necessary (and usually, it isn't). -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 19:04, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::Foxtrot, have you ever solved a wave function ''without'' complex numbers? Waves and oscillations appear everywhere in nature. (By the way, I like your statements about guns and the death penalty on your talk page. Glad to see there's a bit of sense in those directions among CP contributors!) [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 19:50, 13 September 2008 (EDT)