News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A Visual, Intuitive Guide to Imaginary Numbers (2007) by Jtsummers on Friday August 10, 2018 @03:40PM (#17736189)
Reduce these to the integral powers of i: i^0, i^1, i^2, i^3. The symmetries occur two apart (0, 2; 1, 3). Higher integral powers are equivalent to the 4 listed, i^n = i^(n mod 4).

Really, each power corresponds to an additional 90 degree rotation. 0th = 0 degree rotation (just scaling), 1st = 90 degree rotation, 2nd = 180 degree rotation, 3rd = 270 degree rotation (equivalently -90 degree). So that seeming CW rotation is also 3 CCW rotations.

Re:A Visual, Intuitive Guide to Imaginary Numbers (2007) by westoncb on Friday August 10, 2018 @03:48PM (#17736241)
Sure, I guess that's a consequence of general rotational symmetry.

The main thing I was pointing out were the different geometric behaviors of multiplication by real vs imaginary units—not so much the difference between negative and positive units on either axis.

Re:A Visual, Intuitive Guide to Imaginary Numbers (2007) by Jtsummers on Friday August 10, 2018 @04:20PM (#17736453)
Separate out the components, rotation and reflection and scaling. -1 is reflection. i is rotation by 90 degrees CCW. -i is both rotation by 90 degrees and reflection. Positive reals are scaling. So -ai is really rotation by 90 degrees, reflection, and then scaling by a.
Re:A Visual, Intuitive Guide to Imaginary Numbers (2007) by westoncb on Friday August 10, 2018 @04:36PM (#17736543)
But none of that is related to my key point: multiplication by unitary values is significantly different depending on which axis the unit comes from (real vs imaginary), hence my usage of 'asymmetric'.

In the last part of my first comment I point out the benefit (that I perceive) arising from the asymmetry. I also still wonder if a symmetric version (like I describe in the first comment) would be possible.

Splitting the geometric behavior into rotation, reflection, and scaling is interesting—so thanks for the description—I just don't see how it relates to my comment.