--- "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [I wrote:] > 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.
The image of 'partially-rotated' is graspable (so to speak ;D ), but if multiplying two negative numbers is _supposed_ to make a positive, the square root of a negative number 'should not be' possible. So Glad To Pass Calculus Back In The Day Maru GSV Concretellated (or Confusles, as in Hephalumphed) __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
