My grasp of formal logic is tentative at best, but I
never understood why one should propose an "imaginary
number" like the square root of -2 (IIRC the term
correctly), as - to me - math is supposed to describe
the real world, not an impossible one.
You are being confused by the metaphor of imagining. Suppose the name
of the kind of number that the square root of -1 represents were a
"partially-rotated-axes number" or (shorter, more easily said) a
"lateral number" (as Gauss once suggested).
In the real world, while walking, you turn frequently. That is what
"partially-rotated" means. The metaphor of a number on an axis that
is turned a bit is fully real and makes sense ... go into a room with
square Linoleum tiles on the floor; face one row of tiles, then turn
left 90 degrees, and face another row ... you have just become
`imaginary' in the 16th century, metaphorical language of mathematics.
Prove to me you are not a figment of Jeroen's imagination Maru
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
