/* Again: Real vs. Imaginary */

:: Of course, I don't deny the terms. And I acknowledge that the ''terms'' - which can be understood in their historical context - are contrasting. But I don't like the idea to think of the ''real numbers'' as more '''real''' than the ''imaginary numbers'' - especially not because of an etymological reasoning: To quote Kronecker: ''"Die ganzen Zahlen hat der liebe Gott gemacht, alles andere ist Menschenwerk"''--[[User:DiEb|DiEb]] 16:47, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Huh? Real numbers are those people concretely use. You can express any amount of dollars with real numbers. What would 3 + 2i dollars mean? Or the length of a segment or a curve: it is "real" and expressed in real numbers. Imaginary numbers are just ''imaginary'' constructions to help our calculations. They don't refer to "real" concepts people use. Thus, the historical meaning of real vs. imaginary is still valid for normal people - and homeschooled students who use Conservapedia to learn. I absolutely agree with RSchlafly. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 16:53, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually, you can express any amount of currency with rational numbers. That doesn't make the real numbers any less "real," does it? Using your logic, I could say "Pi is a real number. What does pi dollars mean? Nothing. Therefore, the real numbers don't exist." Again, imaginary numbers are ''not'' "just imaginary." They exist just as much as any other number, and have several practical applications.--[[User_talk:Recorder|Recorder]] 17:21, 17 August 2008 (EDT)