yeah, i read the thing, it's still retarded. it's like saying there's a finite number of positive integers that can be written with 10 digits. yeah, no kidding.
what is the ratio of any finite number to infinity? the identity!
some of these abstractions in mathematics around infinity are comical in my opinion.
but then, imaginary numbers are quite hilarious, too. i had some model in my mind at one time as i pondered on the matter of the square root of -1 and i forget what i came up with. ah yes, it's the inversion of the rule about signs. negative numbers themselves are imaginary. they literally are like not-numbers. the numbers that are not there. i think that led me to some idea that why they are useful is because they have a reverse temporal property, similar to how multiplication and division are temporal opposites, and why division is the most expensive basic arithmetic operation, can't be optimized very much, always has to be iteratively computed based on the number of places in your representation, so it's ... well, a constant time operation.
Login to reply
Replies (1)
It's not retarded. That aside I'll comment on complex numbers.
They are interesting from a few different perspectives. One is as THE (up to isomorphism) algebraic closure of the real numbers - which means all polynomials have roots in it. Sort of the final extension you get when doing stuff with inifinite fields and the "standard" polynomial stuff.
Not sure I followed the multi/division being temporal opposites stuff, but I know what you mean in terms of compute time. Don't see connection with that to negative numbers, which are really just subtraction, the opposite of addition, but no more time consuming to compute