Re:Why don't we define “imaginary” numbers for every “imposs...
by rtpg on Monday April 10, 2023 @08:57AM
(#35511708)
So what did happen?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why don't we define “imaginary” numbers for every “imposs...
by aap_ on Monday April 10, 2023 @09:21AM
(#35511944)
Square roots of negative numbers came up when solving cubic equations, even if the final solutions were all real. This meant the square root of a negative number was not something nonsensical the way you might claim for x^2 = -1, but actually...real in some sense.
Re:Why don't we define “imaginary” numbers for every “imposs...
by caf on Monday April 10, 2023 @10:18AM
(#35512612)
Specifically I believe it involved a geometric construction for solving the cubics, which in some cases could not find a solution unless you allowed a square with "negative area".
Re:Why don't we define “imaginary” numbers for every “imposs...
by shagie on Monday April 10, 2023 @02:54PM
(#35515936)
There's a good YouTube video on it that includes an epic math battle.
Veritasium - How Imaginary Numbers Were Invented - https://youtu.be/cUzklzVXJwo
Solving the cubic was a physical thing back then. https://www.maa.org/press/periodicals/convergence/solving-th...