News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why don't we define “imaginary” numbers for every “impossibility”? (2012). Parent comment

Re:Why don't we define “imaginary” numbers for every “imposs... by contravariant on Monday April 10, 2023 @09:32AM (#35512060)
One thing that is interesting to note is that both dual numbers and imaginary numbers arise as quotient of the polynomial ring.

Complex numbers being equivalent to R[X]/(1+X^2) and dual numbers being equivalent to R[X]/(X^2).

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why don't we define “imaginary” numbers for every “imposs... by lanstin on Monday April 10, 2023 @04:37PM (#35517106)
That is why I found algebra to be annoying, unless it was algebra from algebraic topology. Ring of polynomials is too complicated.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why don't we define “imaginary” numbers for every “imposs... by hgsgm on Monday April 10, 2023 @09:16PM (#35519453)
"too complicated" is a weird way to say "provides a concise and consistent way to model superficially diverse phenomena and show how similar they really are" .

So you also find matrices too complicated?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why don't we define “imaginary” numbers for every “imposs... by lanstin on Wednesday April 19, 2023 @07:20PM (#35634539)
matrices over reals are ok especially if you keep to SO(n) but you can get very weird maths as polynomial quotients. they do not look to me like they are very similar. complex plane and extensions of all kinds of weird. seems hacky rather than illuminating to me. but then i only really like complex numbers as a field since analytic functions are so nice
[ Parent | on HN ]