Re:Cantor function, a.k.a. devil's staircase
by heavenlyblue on Friday June 12, 2020 @10:24AM
(#23499514)
You are mixing up definitions and names.
Do complex numbers have anything to do with complexity?
I'm not quite sure where this comment comes from - what I am saying has nothing to do with the names; I use the conventional names for the natural reasons. Perhaps you meant the potential ambiguity of terms?
I agree there are sometimes unfortunate consequences of transliterating mathematical terms (e.g. "field", "smooth", "increasing") this potential for confusion with a lay audience (cf the famous (true?) story of a senator objecting the funding of "complex" analysis - was this your reference?). However, the alternative is worse, and peppers any conversation with intractable jargon.
So why? Real & Complex analysis are by far the best way humans have yet come up with to model certain things, particularly modeling a large subset of physical interactions in the universe.
So to some degree we are stuck with this. Mostly it's the fact that fields like R an C are actually pretty strange objects. Strange in ways that are hard to get your head around, and that leak out into any mathematics that you build on top of it.
So what to do? There is beauty there as well. And although we have tricks to hide most of this, most of the time, it's not a bad thing really that when you look closely the weirdness is apparent.