SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 43:
Line 43: + + + + + + + +
Just two more thoughts
:"it works ..." ''at what''? Using "i" as an exponent may have value to the extent that any orthogonal coordinates have value, but it could be "j" or "k" to accomplish the same goal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 18:49, 17 August 2015 (EDT)
:"it works ..." ''at what''? Using "i" as an exponent may have value to the extent that any orthogonal coordinates have value, but it could be "j" or "k" to accomplish the same goal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 18:49, 17 August 2015 (EDT)
===Just two more thoughts===
There are a couple of things tending to sidetrack this discussion. They are red herrings.
#The talk of the equation being "the 'e=Mc^2' of mathematics" was a reference to the incredible ''fame'' of E=mc^2, not its subject matter. It's like calling someone "the Shakespeare of X" or "the Mozart of Y". As you know, I'm working on putting the fame of E=mc^2 into perspective on the other page. Yes, I'm still working on it. If both equations are "simply a redefinition rather than a derivation", that's a pure coincidence. But in fact neither is a redefinition, something I plan to convince you of.
#The talk of the arbitrariness of "i" is a deep question, much deeper than whether you use the symbol "j" or "k" instead. (You're not an electrical engineer by any chance, are you? Oh, right. You are. :-) The choice of the letter "i" to indicate the second basis vector for complex numbers, the choice of the 16th letter of the Greek alphabet for the ratio of circumference to diameter, and the choice of the symbol "2" for the Peano successor of "1", are completely independent of the subject matter. Whether "i" is ambiguous (it isn't) is a completely different matter. I will explain that when I get the time.
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 19:55, 17 August 2015 (EDT)