Path: ...!news.nobody.at!news.mb-net.net!open-news-network.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <1uHpD9NU4llEAGz2qSowUO5tguE@jntp>
JNTP-Route: nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: New way of dealing with complex numbers
References: <kRgli3QEdimCvJ9569p9c9pq7Kc@jntp> <vqemhv$2gck$1@news.muc.de> <h8RR2Nzw97n_q0rv1uxcQeGImmk@jntp>
 <UUHFRwScFhtLox9AxAbFSKNqS5s@jntp> <sV_3zvUKDE_Hgw9KIPPia-_AMkM@jntp>
Newsgroups: sci.math
JNTP-HashClient: abibCJfr-Jbyt5ZTyyrnlFfFHE8
JNTP-ThreadID: c6gHfjF1zb3jexYtsO4J-uwTdUA
JNTP-ReferenceUserID: 4@nemoweb.net
JNTP-Uri: https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=1uHpD9NU4llEAGz2qSowUO5tguE@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/1.0
JNTP-OriginServer: nemoweb.net
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 25 12:28:27 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:128.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/128.0
Injection-Info: nemoweb.net; posting-host="073785b44c2f50fc0336698b4f123e3e9b227084"; logging-data="2025-03-08T12:28:27Z/9234494"; posting-account="190@nemoweb.net"; mail-complaints-to="julien.arlandis@gmail.com"
JNTP-ProtocolVersion: 0.21.1
JNTP-Server: PhpNemoServer/0.94.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-JNTP-JsonNewsGateway: 0.96
From: Python <jp@python.invalid>
Bytes: 3087
Lines: 40

Le 07/03/2025 à 19:00, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 07/03/2025 à 13:12, Python a écrit :
>> Le 07/03/2025 à 13:04, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>> ...
>>> Nothing prevents mathematicians from proposing their ideas, nothing prevents me 
>>> from proposing mine (validated in logic by AI).
>> 
>> AI "validates" also that cows lay eggs.
>> 
>>> Mathematicians pose i²=-1 and sqrt(i)=-1.
>> 
>> They don't "pose" i^2 = -1 they *define* C and i in such a way that i^2 = -1.
>> 
>> They certainly don't pretend that sqrt(i) = -1 ! Where did you get this from ?
>> 
>> sqrt(i) is (1 + i)/sqrt(2) (for the principal value of sqrt).
> 
> I obviously understand what you're saying.

This is very unlikely.

> What I blame you for is unconditionally following what you've learned (I'm not 
> saying everything is wrong, I'm not a conspiracy theorist), and never questioning 
> a system of thought that may have flaws.

This is not how learning math works. I don't "unconditionally" follow 
anything, I started by understanding what it is about, how C is defined, 
what properties this set has when it comes to mathematical operations and 
I did so, as a student, by writing down proofs by myself.

You are the one following unconditionally any idea that came through your 
(very silly) mind and stubbornly refuse to consider *proofs* that your 
"system" is inconsistent, even when these proofs are trivial. Moreover you 
have this completely delusional claim that several centuries of research 
and discussions between mathematicians, that end up in a rigorous 
definition of complex numbers and zillions of applications is wrong 
without taking time to seriously study it.