Ask Your Eris?

[saint aini]

fourier frequency analysis.

s-domain analysis and Laplace transforms use the complex plane to reduce difficult to solve differential equations to easier algebraic equations and then back again to the real plane for real answers.

[Zurtok Khan]

The Wart has character!

[nurbldoff]

I find it pointless to say that imaginary numbers are less real then "ordinary" numbers. They're not, they just got an unfortunate name. No numbers can "exist" any more than imaginary numbers in any sense, since all numbers are pure abstractions anyway. We're used to using  numbers day by day, to describe amounts and stuff, but that doesn't make them more "real" than words. Besides, numbers such as (non-LMNO) Pi can't even be represented finitely with digits, are they real? Pi can be defined as the relation between the circumference and the diameter of a perfect circle; does such a thing "exist"?

The important thing to remember about science is that it's really all just about making models; pictures of "reality". If imaginary numbers are a cool way to make a working model, why not use them? Because some people find them hard to grasp?

[Eldora, Oracle of Alchemy]

mmmmmmmm..... Pi........

Code Select Expand

/*******Formulas for Pi ***********/

***Leibnitz's Formula ***

PI/4 = 1/1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + ...

***Wallis Product ***

PI/2 = 2/1 * 2/3 * 4/3 * 4/5 * 6/5 * 6/7 * ...

***Lord Brouncker's Formula ***

4/PI = 1 +        1
          ----------------
          2 +     3^2
              ------------
              2 +   5^2
                 ---------
                 2 + 7^2 ...


For those who can never get enough Pi

http://www.math.com/tables/constants/pi.htm

[hooplala]

I can't believe I asked this!

[Harlequin]

I find it pointless to say that imaginary numbers are less real then "ordinary" numbers. They're not, they just got an unfortunate name. No numbers can "exist" any more than imaginary numbers in any sense, since all numbers are pure abstractions anyway. We're used to using  numbers day by day, to describe amounts and stuff, but that doesn't make them more "real" than words. Besides, numbers such as (non-LMNO) Pi can't even be represented finitely with digits, are they real? Pi can be defined as the relation between the circumference and the diameter of a perfect circle; does such a thing "exist"?

The important thing to remember about science is that it's really all just about making models; pictures of "reality". If imaginary numbers are a cool way to make a working model, why not use them? Because some people find them hard to grasp?

But there is a difference between unreal and real numbers in the sense that real, positive numbers are observable. I can see that I have two apples in front of me; I don't see, for instance, that I have minus nine monkeys. Likewise, i, pi, infinity etc are conceptual rather than 'real'. Pi is a definite value, yes, but no-one can actually list all of it in any form other than a fraction - just the same as any other irrational number. i and infinity are very useful for mathematical working, and of course they have a very important place in maths and physics - but nevertheless, there is still a distinction between 'basic' numbers and these more advanced types.

Of course, 42 > Everything else.

[hooplala]

Is that possibly just learned perception though?

[shadowfurry23]

*recorpalizes Altoid Addict with all of his parts except that ugly mole on his left ass cheek*

I teleported home one night
With Ron and Sid and Meg.
Ron stole Meggie's heart away
And I got Sidney's leg.

Isn't it suspicious that most Starfleet Doctors seems reluctant to use the transporter?  And what if you're not really being moved to another place, what if you're actually being killed, and a copy of you is being created in the new location?  What if every newly transported person is a unique individual, with their own soul?

  How many Jim Kirks are there in Heaven?  How many in Hell?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I find it pointless to say that imaginary numbers are less real then "ordinary" numbers. They're not, they just got an unfortunate name. No numbers can "exist" any more than imaginary numbers in any sense, since all numbers are pure abstractions anyway. We're used to using  numbers day by day, to describe amounts and stuff, but that doesn't make them more "real" than words. Besides, numbers such as (non-LMNO) Pi can't even be represented finitely with digits, are they real? Pi can be defined as the relation between the circumference and the diameter of a perfect circle; does such a thing "exist"?

The important thing to remember about science is that it's really all just about making models; pictures of "reality". If imaginary numbers are a cool way to make a working model, why not use them? Because some people find them hard to grasp?

But there is a difference between unreal and real numbers in the sense that real, positive numbers are observable. I can see that I have two apples in front of me; I don't see, for instance, that I have minus nine monkeys. Likewise, i, pi, infinity etc are conceptual rather than 'real'. Pi is a definite value, yes, but no-one can actually list all of it in any form other than a fraction - just the same as any other irrational number. i and infinity are very useful for mathematical working, and of course they have a very important place in maths and physics - but nevertheless, there is still a distinction between 'basic' numbers and these more advanced types.

Of course, 42 > Everything else.

I think you might me laboring under a misconception.

You can see an apple and an apple in front of you. If you choose to label them with a quantitative identity based on a generalization, then you can do so... but its no less imaginary than Pi (Apple Pi at that!).

Apple and Apple = Apple and Apple because the two apples are probably not the same. They are likely different apples with different qualities, weight, flavor, bruises, worms...

Ironicly it was Crowly that said "'1+1' is truth and '1+1=2' is a lie".