Why don't we define “imaginary” numbers for every “impossibility”? (2012)

Re:Why don't we define “imaginary” numbers for every “imposs... by red_trumpet on Monday April 10, 2023 @08:36AM (#35511538)

> If the polynomial P is invertible, i.e. has degree 1

Should be degree 0: only constant polynomials are invertible. E.g. x+1 is not invertible, and modding it out doesn't result in the zero ring.

The example is a bit confusing, because $x=x+1$ is equivalent to $0=1$, which has degree 0.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why don't we define “imaginary” numbers for every “imposs... by heinrichhartman on Monday April 10, 2023 @09:30AM (#35512042)

Yes! Fixing

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why don't we define “imaginary” numbers for every “imposs... by hgsgm on Monday April 10, 2023 @09:17PM (#35519465)

What's wrong with negative degree monomials?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why don't we define “imaginary” numbers for every “imposs... by red_trumpet on Wednesday April 12, 2023 @09:21AM (#35539203)

You mean like $x^{-1} = 1/x$? That's called a rational function[1], but not a polynomial, so it's not an element of the polynomial ring[2]. Of course you can also consider the algebra of rational functions, but this is a field[3] (almost by definition: you make every polynomial invertible), which means that modding out anything other than 0 yields the zero ring[4].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_function

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynomial_ring

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_ring

[ Parent | on HN ]