Programming

Nah, at the time you probably thought that was true. Remember back in elementary school when you were told that you couldn't do square roots of anything below 0, same thing !

  On 5/6/2014 at 9:16 PM, mcbpete said:

Nah, at the time you probably thought that was true. Remember back in elementary school when you were told that you couldn't do square roots of anything below 0, same thing !

Or back in calculus when you were told that you couldn't sum a divergent series :)

Wrote a load of stuff over the last few years. Most complex is probably a rendering engine on the PS2, that was fed data from my own polygon stripper through a triangle clipping, textured rendering engine. Lots of assembly, matrix maths, display list-ish manipulation. Was a load easier on later machines.

My main languages are C++ and C# but I found myself using Delphi a lot for the last couple of years.

Programming is definitely something you have to keep practicing. Sometimes it feels like I've just started learning even though I've been programming for my entire adult life and more. Such a wide and varied field :).

  On 5/6/2014 at 9:16 PM, mcbpete said:

Nah, at the time you probably thought that was true. Remember back in elementary school when you were told that you couldn't do square roots of anything below 0, same thing !

you can do square roots of negatives ?

  On 5/6/2014 at 10:21 PM, Joseph said:

Or back in calculus when you were told that you couldn't sum a divergent series :)

  On 5/6/2014 at 11:12 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 5/6/2014 at 9:16 PM, mcbpete said:

Nah, at the time you probably thought that was true. Remember back in elementary school when you were told that you couldn't do square roots of anything below 0, same thing !

you can do square roots of negatives ?

 

i

ah this, but it's not really doing a square root of a negative number, it's just a different system.

I'd say more it's adding an additional dimension to the number plane - bear in mind negative numbers were's thought of as a real thing until several hundred AD, then suddenly we had something on our axis below 0

  On 5/7/2014 at 12:08 AM, eugene said:

ah this, but it's not really doing a square root of a negative number, it's just a different system.

Of course it's doing the square root of a negative number: the number i squares to -1.

And saying it's "just a different system" is unfair to the complex numbers. The complex numbers are the system. All polynomial equations are solvable within the complex numbers. And in quantum mechanics, probability amplitudes are complex!

  On 5/7/2014 at 2:50 AM, Joseph said:

 

  On 5/7/2014 at 12:08 AM, eugene said:

ah this, but it's not really doing a square root of a negative number, it's just a different system.

Of course it's doing the square root of a negative number: the number i squares to -1.

 

You might say that it's an arbitrary definition, but it really isn't. To see it you have to understand the geometry of multiplication. In the complex plane, when you multiply two numbers you rotate the plane. The pure imaginary numbers (like i) lie on the vertical axis, the pure reals (like -1) lie on the horizontal axis. See here: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/03/01/opinion/09strogatz1/09strogatz1-custom1-v3.jpg

i makes a 90 degree angle from the horiz. axis, so when you square it, you land at an angle of 90+90=180 degrees, at -1.

wow, that's cool. can you prove that 9/11 was a false flag with those ?

  On 5/7/2014 at 3:21 AM, eugene said:

wow, that's cool. can you prove that 9/11 was a false flag with those ?

No, you just need standard bayesian probability for that, the real numbers between 0 and 1.

(If you really want to argue about that then please resurrect some old thread, we shouldn't derail this one.)

Please continue to derail this thread with a 3d video demonstration of this rotation of the imaginary plane stuff

10 PRINT "I CAN ONLY WRITE BASIC"

20 GOTO 10

RUN

  On 5/7/2014 at 3:37 AM, Joseph said:

 

  On 5/7/2014 at 3:21 AM, eugene said:

wow, that's cool. can you prove that 9/11 was a false flag with those ?

No, you just need standard bayesian probability for that, the real numbers between 0 and 1.

 

(If you really want to argue about that then please resurrect some old thread, we shouldn't derail this one.)

 

nah not really, i just wanted to see if you'll spew something equally retarded as what you did in that thread on marathon bombing.

Last word double down syndrome is an icky trait eugy.

  On 5/7/2014 at 2:58 AM, Joseph said:

 

  On 5/7/2014 at 2:50 AM, Joseph said:

 

  On 5/7/2014 at 12:08 AM, eugene said:

ah this, but it's not really doing a square root of a negative number, it's just a different system.

Of course it's doing the square root of a negative number: the number i squares to -1.

 

You might say that it's an arbitrary definition, but it really isn't. To see it you have to understand the geometry of multiplication. In the complex plane, when you multiply two numbers you rotate the plane. The pure imaginary numbers (like i) lie on the vertical axis, the pure reals (like -1) lie on the horizontal axis. See here: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/03/01/opinion/09strogatz1/09strogatz1-custom1-v3.jpg

 

i makes a 90 degree angle from the horiz. axis, so when you square it, you land at an angle of 90+90=180 degrees, at -1.

 

To be more precise you can't do square roots of negative numbers in the real domain that is generally used in school mathematics. You can do them in the complex domain for which the real domain is a subset. Or looking the other way the complex numbers are a field extension of the real number field. There are also higher dimensional number sets like quaternions, for which the complex numbers are a subset.

It just boils down to the selection of the domain or field you're working with. Complex numbers don't make sense in some contexts, but neither do negative numbers, for example if you're counting bananas or measuring the area of a garden. Complex numbers are useful if you're doing for example electronics, quaternions can be useful in 3D graphics, etc.

Also, numbers aren't a real thing anyway. They're just an abstract human concept that handily map to our perception of reality when interpreted in certain ways..

  On 5/7/2014 at 9:24 AM, delet... said:

Last word double down syndrome is an icky trait eugy.

you bunch really are something of cult, aren't you ? a minor diss towards an RT watcher/conspiratard/libertarian moron/chomskyst and you immediately get someone to his defense...

  On 5/7/2014 at 2:50 AM, Joseph said:

 

  On 5/7/2014 at 12:08 AM, eugene said:

ah this, but it's not really doing a square root of a negative number, it's just a different system.

Of course it's doing the square root of a negative number: the number i squares to -1.

 

And saying it's "just a different system" is unfair to the complex numbers. The complex numbers are the system. All polynomial equations are solvable within the complex numbers. And in quantum mechanics, probability amplitudes are complex!

 

Nicely answered, eugene doesn't realise that real numbers are a subset of complex numbers.

well ok i'm not en expert obviously but those are all abstract systems that might have some usage in some fields as mokz said . i mean you can say that 2+2=flol and see where it can be applicable.

do complex numbers describe something natural that real numbers can't ?

  On 5/7/2014 at 9:54 AM, mokz said:

 

  On 5/7/2014 at 2:58 AM, Joseph said:

 

  On 5/7/2014 at 2:50 AM, Joseph said:

 

  On 5/7/2014 at 12:08 AM, eugene said:

ah this, but it's not really doing a square root of a negative number, it's just a different system.

Of course it's doing the square root of a negative number: the number i squares to -1.

 

You might say that it's an arbitrary definition, but it really isn't. To see it you have to understand the geometry of multiplication. In the complex plane, when you multiply two numbers you rotate the plane. The pure imaginary numbers (like i) lie on the vertical axis, the pure reals (like -1) lie on the horizontal axis. See here: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/03/01/opinion/09strogatz1/09strogatz1-custom1-v3.jpg

 

i makes a 90 degree angle from the horiz. axis, so when you square it, you land at an angle of 90+90=180 degrees, at -1.

 

 

To be more precise you can't do square roots of negative numbers in the real domain that is generally used in school mathematics. You can do them in the complex domain for which the real domain is a subset. Or looking the other way the complex numbers are a field extension of the real number field. There are also higher dimensional number sets like quaternions, for which the complex numbers are a subset.

 

It just boils down to the selection of the domain or field you're working with. Complex numbers don't make sense in some contexts, but neither do negative numbers, for example if you're counting bananas or measuring the area of a garden. Complex numbers are useful if you're doing for example electronics, quaternions can be useful in 3D graphics, etc.

 

Also, numbers aren't a real thing anyway. They're just an abstract human concept that handily map to our perception of reality when interpreted in certain ways..

 

my hero

  On 5/7/2014 at 10:33 AM, eugene said:

well ok i'm not en expert obviously but those are all abstract systems that might have some usage in some fields as mokz said . i mean you can say that 2+2=flol and see where it can be applicable.

do complex numbers describe something natural that real numbers can't ?

A lot of things, I recommend just looking up a page describing its applications (doesn't matter if you don't understand the Maths), it's pretty vast. Complex functions, for example, can describe wave functions (like travelling waves etc), that's the most basic use I can think of, but it's endless tbh.

Didn't mean to sound like a dick in my original response either.

  On 5/7/2014 at 10:33 AM, eugene said:

well ok i'm not en expert obviously but those are all abstract systems that might have some usage in some fields as mokz said . i mean you can say that 2+2=flol and see where it can be applicable.

do complex numbers describe something natural that real numbers can't ?

You can reduce any modern mathematical system down to integers or even basic set theoretical operations. So complex numbers aren't "needed" in the strict sense as are not the real numbers or even integers. It's just that they make calculations much easier.

There are plenty of uses for complex numbers. Engineers use them all the time.

If you do a Fourier transformation on a signal you get complex numbers as result that describe the amplitude and phase shift on each frequency. You could do this with real numbers also but it would be far more complicated. And you would have two sets of numbers describing the amplitude and phase components. This makes the creation of linear system equations in signal processing and systems engineering very easy. For a given filter you can just write Y=F*X where Y, F and X are the Fourier transformations of output, filter and input respectively.

In analog electronics they also simplify the calculations. You can write the capacitor impedance simply as Z=1/(i*w*C) which gives you again the phase shift and resistance in a single complex number for a given angular velocity w.

That's just couple of examples from my field. They are also needed for higher order polynomials for intermediate results even though the final roots may be all real, etc.

I see, so technically it's just a more parsimonious way to explain shit...if im getting it right.

  On 5/7/2014 at 12:10 PM, eugene said:

I see, so technically it's just a more parsimonious way to explain shit...if im getting it right.

  On 5/7/2014 at 12:18 PM, mcbpete said:

 

  On 5/7/2014 at 12:10 PM, eugene said:

I see, so technically it's just a more parsimonious way to explain shit...if im getting it right.

Googles "parsimonious" - Nope, nope it's not.