That is right folks. Your friendly math and science thread is back!
For those of you that were not around when a version of this thread existed you might be wondering what in math and science is allowed here. Well anything, as long as it follows AG's rules. Got a theory that you want to put out there, (ya I am looking at you Mino) Go For It! Just found something interesting that you want to share? We will let you do that too.
Anything math and science goes! So get those brains thinking and searching and let's maybe learn something!
*tries to think of something actually interesting*
Oh, imaginary numbers are interesting, right? I think so...*
Here's one of the first things I learned about imaginary numbers in college: So, i is the square root of -1, right? But, which square root is it? Think about it: 1 has two square roots**, 1 and -1, since
1*1 = 1 and -1*-1=1
And indeed, we have
i*i =-1 and -i*-i = -1
So both are square roots of -1. But then, which one is which? Like, seeing as -i is also the square root of -1, what is the difference between i and -i?
*and yes I remember that we talked about this last time. ** acutally, all number have n nth roots of unity in the complex plane. That is, there are three complex numbers that will cube to 1, four that will.. uh... "fourth" to 1, and so on. Again, this is true for all numbers. Furthermore, if you were to graph the roots of unity of 1 on the complex plane, they would be evenly spaced out on the unit circle. Math is CRAZZZY
people like to think because of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" that the answer to life, universe and everything is the number 42. i however have a theory that tells that it is not 42, but only 4. so without the 2.
here is why in a step by step guide: 1-take just any word you can think of. ("alfabet" for example) 2-count the letters of that word. (7) 3-count the letters of that number. (seven = 5) 4-keep counting the letters of the numbers. (five = 4) 5-you will always end up with 4 (four = 4)
so 1 more example: hydrometeorologist = eighteen = eight = five = four = four = four......
Got a theory that you want to put out there, (ya I am looking at you Mino) Go For It! Just found something interesting that you want to share? We will let you do that too.
.... I don't want to. I'm scared.... the theory remains a theory! It isn't completed yet. It's exciting but not finished yet... well, somewhat.
It's possible for low values of five or medium-high values of two. This theory was proven roughly 30 years ago, for low values of thirty. *
I tend to go for values of five that are larger than the other values of five. I don't want your small five, I want more of stuff! So throw away your five, and give me a five instead.
So both are square roots of -1. But then, which one is which? Like, seeing as -i is also the square root of -1, what is the difference between i and -i?
-2 and 2 are both roots of 4, you don't see people getting those confused. I really don't see the problem here.
you will always end up with 4 (four = 4)
That is because in the English language 4 is the only number that has the same amount of letters as what it stands for.
All integers can be expressed in a similar way. ie 1 = 0.9999999... etc. There are about one million proofs for this.
Ya, it bugs me but I get it. Would 9999999999... then be equal to infinity? Well, I know infinity isn't a number but I think this makes sense.
.... I don't want to. I'm scared.... the theory remains a theory! It isn't completed yet. It's exciting but not finished yet... well, somewhat.
But, post it. Be brave Mino!
I once heard that 2+2 can equal 5
You make it look that way but somewhere you divide by 0 which of course you cannot really do.
-2 and 2 are both roots of 4, you don't see people getting those confused. I really don't see the problem here
Because we don't define two as the square root of four. -2 also comes with a concept that is easy to wrap your head around. 2 is what happens when you have have two units of dirt, -2 is the size of the hole you removed the dirt from. Or something like that. Sorry, actually that's a terrible metaphor. Come up with a better one and pretend I said it, thanks.
But we define the imaginary number i, from which all other imaginary numbers are based off of, as the square root of -1, which is undefined under normal rules of operation. There are other ways we could have imaginary numbers, but this is how it is defined (usually). But as soon as you create that rule, you also allow for two roots of -1. But, you haven't yet defined which side of the imaginary number line is positive and which side is negative. So, which i is which?
Humans need carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen to survive. These being elements, they can't be artificially created. But just about everything else can be created. Do you think it would be possible for humans to live on solely those four elements, given that those elements were manipulated in favor of a human's life?
