Yes yes, Imaginary numbers are negative. Numbers are still symbolic representations. Does not change the main idea.
You mean you canât count imaginary numbers and get a real number.
Yeah that does make sense.
Original Source.
Leonard Susskind Explains
This is a fragment of the Quantum mechanics lecture by professor.
I think we can conclude nothing about higher dimensions at the end and just use them in any way we can percieve to solve the suffering of mankind.
So that means [Edit after @Nyarlathotep to correct grammar]u can also count negative numbers on fingers.
I didnât knew that yours fingers extend to Negative axis.
Well personally one example I can give is go to mirror and count and look to the fingers in mirror there you have negative fingers.
So not in this world is it possible,in mirror world maybe.
Btw (iota ) itâs square root so I donât think fingers are meant to count fractions.
Complex numbers (with non-zero imaginary parts) are NOT negative (or positive for that matter).
I was giving him an analogy to make it easy.
I didnât said imaginary numbers are negative.
You know what I mean.
Have studied complex numbers myself
Look I m clearly saying iota is something fraction.lets suppose.
So you can count neither negative not imaginary numbers.
I mean those with multiple of iota.
3i,2i,4i.
Negative and complex numbers can be counted.
On fingers I was asking.
Or in daily life.
Like hey give me negative number of balls.
The pizza has 4i (four iota)slices.
This pancake is a -3/4th piece
You can count complex numbers on your fingers like you can count chickens on your fingers, or negative numbers (by using a natural number and a unit):
1 chicken(s), 2 chickens, 3 chickens, âŚ
1i, 2i, 3i, âŚ
-$1, -$2, -$3, âŚ
And you are wrong. A whole science is based on imagining higher dimensions.
But that wonât mean anything.
Now you get my point.
Just like you can only attach i or -$ to it and it is meaningless same is for higher dimensions ,you can project them on screen by some MATLAB but it doesnât give us physical understanding about itâs nature.
It doesnât mean you can say to cashier give me - $56i . Or -66/77 particles of rice.
Thatâs very true.
Computer science and particle physics is product of it.
For example
a four-dimensional space can be used to represent the movement of a particle w.r.t fourth dimension of time.
Very useful!!
But again ,look,carefully.
We only know they exist(can).
We canât touch them with out hands like we touch the food.
There maybe 4D universes which you canât touch.
I am differeniating 4D computer graph(Ball moving with time) and Real 4D object( A fourth dimensional pizza).
I made a 92 dimensional space as a joke in uni. Where each orthogonal direction represents an element from the periodic table. So each chemical would be a (up to) 92 dimensional vector composed out of unit vectors for the 92 dimensions/elements. So in this scheme 1 molecule of H2O would be composed of a component with length 2 in the âhydrogen directionâ, and length 1 in the âoxygen directionâ and length 0 in all other directions. Two molecules of water would be a vector with a component of 4 in the hydrogen direction and 2 in the oxygen direction (and 0 in all other directions/elements).
This scheme allowed me to âautomaticallyâ balance nasty chemical equations by algorithm (with a computer).
That looks like a multivariate analysis to me.
Same can be achieved in psychology as you did with chemistry.
Well you assumed each chemical as n dimension vector.
Let me treat anxiety as n dimensional problem.
More greater the n more mental illness exist.
So anxiety is one dimensional.
Psychosis is 3 dimensional.
Schizophrenia 4.
And anything else.
Look.
That was cool what you did,I like that it saved your time and labeling chemical reactions but they arenât a way to achieve how dimensions really look like in front of us
If my bank statement says -ÂŁ39 that means something, and I am no mathematician?
Just call them up and explain that since you canât seem to figure out how to count money (or chickens or whatever) on your fingers; that you donât owe them that money. Should work great!
That is rather odd description of imaginary numbers. I personally have no issue with perceiving them as well as other numbers. Excluding functions and imaginary numbers, all other numbers populate simple 1D numbers scale. Function give us complex shapes and imaginary numbers are just an accidental discovery, very useful as it turned out to be, that allow us to calculate simple 2D with basic algebraic tools.
To make it easier to perceive, think of them as populating the space above and below numbers scale.
You are basically playing with semantics of the word perception. Our true sensory input should not even register higher dimensions, so we can say that we truly shouldnât even perceive the higher dimensions. What do you think, can we perceive that we are on a spinning earth? I think that you would agree that most of rational people would, after some basic education, say that they can perceive the concept of spinning earth. But your sensory inputs would never lead you to that conclusion. We must accept that we can have a perception of a concept based only on intellectual input. Did you see how many believers are out there?
Or⌠He is incapable of the same perception as the rest?
This statement is false. If for no other reason: a 5 dimensional object doesnât need to have 5 spacial dimensions. I gave examples of molecules being objects composed of the dimensions of the 92 elements. Proteins are 5 dimensional objects in that scheme (92 dimensional, but with 0 components in 87 of the dimensions).
That is false: if for no other reason: I can perceive length, width, height, and time.
That is false. Negating what I said, does not reproduce what you said.
I never said that, and I donât think that. This is a bald faced lie from you, about me.
I didnât say that, hint that, suggest that, or believe that. If you really thought that, you are an idiot. But with your other lies, it is hard to tell if you really thought that or were just lying, again.
You said a lot more than that (as this message contains many quotes from you on this topic, before you wrote this). This is what led me to conclude you are fundamentally a dishonest person. Perhaps it was an honest misunderstanding at first that could have been easily fixed; but when you started lying about me, it became personal.