[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference rusure::math

Title:Mathematics at DEC
Moderator:RUSURE::EDP
Created:Mon Feb 03 1986
Last Modified:Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:2083
Total number of notes:14613

1546.0. "Back to the (square) roots" by ELIS::BUREMA (Concorde stretches 8" when it hits the sound barrier) Fri Jan 24 1992 07:42

T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
1546.1SRQ(-1) = iPLAYER::BRH932::VERHOEVENFri Jan 24 1992 10:1710
SQR(-1) = i. This is tru for imaginary numbers 

For real numbers SQR(-1) does not exists

Somebody else can probaly explay you why in good English, I studied math in
Dutch an French and don't know the porper English terms.

Johnny

1546.2WONDER::COYLEFri Jan 24 1992 11:5510
    The trouble with the number whose square is -1 being the definition
    of <i> is that would include two numbers:  +i  and  -i.
                 _____
    With   i = \/ -1    we assume the positive root by conventional
    use of the square root operator.  If we want to use both roots
    we use:          _______
               + \  /
               -  \/   
    
    -Joe
1546.3and "imaginary" is not a good term, eitherVMSDEV::HALLYBFish have no concept of fireFri Jan 24 1992 12:028
1546.4why did he say that?BUZON::BELDIN_RPull us together, not apartFri Jan 24 1992 12:1415
To be precise, one would have to define what s/he includes as a "number" in
the particular discussion.  So, if one only counts the "reals", then
sqrt(-1) does not describe any number.  If you admit complex numbers, then
there is an operation which, when restricted to the reals, yields square
roots, and which, when applied to -1, yields +i and -i.  You could make a
case that this is a reasonable definition for the square root of -1, but
very pedantic people would require the kind of qualifications I made here.

As asked in .0, is it sloppy?  Yes, I guess so.  But then, what is the
purpose the author is trying to accomplish.  As I read .0, the author (or
speaker) was trying to help students understand why velocities beyond the
speed of light were "peculiar" in some way, and he used this example.  I
guess he was successful.

Dick