Automoderated users, edit
1,837
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 143:
Line 143: + +
Conservapedia:Critical Thinking in Math (view source)
Revision as of 00:13, September 15, 2008
, 00:13, September 15, 2008→Draft Curriculum: Ditto re waves.
:::::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)
:::::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)
:::::If I remember right (and it's been some time), I used complex/imaginary numbers in electrical engineering, systems analysis, signal processing, vibration analysis, etc. - as [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] said, pretty much anything with a wave or oscillation. (As we used to say in my engineering classes, imaginary electricity can kill you.) DC current is real, I'm not sure AC is. (Watts are power, not current.) Are you saying these subjects can be covered without complex/imaginary numbers? Again, it's been a while, but that seems odd to me. If that's the case, why is it taught with complex numbers? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:13, 14 September 2008 (EDT)