278
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 187:
Line 187: +
→Unique square root of -1 necessary for complex analysis
:::::: But if mathematicians insist on the rigor of this approach, then why not simply define God to exist? There is no contradiction that results from that definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:24, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::: But if mathematicians insist on the rigor of this approach, then why not simply define God to exist? There is no contradiction that results from that definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:24, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Now you're just being silly. Maths is not religion and maths is not a physical science. In mathematics one can define any structure one likes, logical consistency is all that is required. In that sense, complex numbers are perfectly well defined. Mathematical structures may or may not be useful for describing reality, but that has to be checked by comparing predictions from mathematical theories to experimental results or observations. Even then, mathematical structures are not (physical) reality, they are tools to describe reality. Complex numbers have proved to be extremely useful in many fields of science and engineering. Aren't you an electrical engineer or something like that? Did you not find complex numbers useful? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 19:20, 8 April 2012 (EDT)