Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <zLLXwaL4qPu1Oe6DnqUvG7bMrvs@jntp>
JNTP-Route: nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: Equation complexe
References: <oAvE_mEWK82aUJOdwpGna1Rzs1U@jntp> <vplf03$26m33$2@dont-email.me> <phaAQGQzp-zUFaCH1je-PMrkpYE@jntp>
 <vplkro$27sv3$1@dont-email.me> <BemyjeEyCW-MjW40qw4k1u6D-7E@jntp> <ncqtrj98vign4g73h9q5l4ch118u6n8ai4@4ax.com>
 <vpni0a$2l7hi$1@dont-email.me> <Ga2uRR1O03r2Y8nlx15d4JX1Nos@jntp>
Newsgroups: sci.math
JNTP-HashClient: P10l6Iy7NDkBDAeWAfUfgsUjV_o
JNTP-ThreadID: O5CXkAcAe1D7_dx2s1eq7KbScfI
JNTP-ReferenceUserID: 4@nemoweb.net
JNTP-Uri: https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=zLLXwaL4qPu1Oe6DnqUvG7bMrvs@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/1.0
JNTP-OriginServer: nemoweb.net
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 25 18:31:11 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0
Injection-Info: nemoweb.net; posting-host="88d8e3fc77776d6bcc186faa1aefc7625bd3eae9"; logging-data="2025-02-26T18:31:11Z/9223120"; 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: 2845
Lines: 33

Le 26/02/2025 à 19:16, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 26/02/2025 à 18:11, Moebius a écrit :
>> Am 26.02.2025 um 11:30 schrieb Barry Schwarz:
>>> On Wed, 26 Feb 25 00:11:36 +0000, Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr>
>>> wrote:
>> 
>>>> i is an imaginary unit such that, for all x, i^x=-1.
>> 
>> Fascinating! So i = i^1 = -1 in your "system"?
> 
>  Absolutely.
> 
>  Je ne me contente pas d'écrire i²=-1 mais pour tout x, i^x=-1.
> 
>  Nous sommes en train d'utiliser une unité imaginaire et nous devons l'utiliser 
> correctement jusqu'à bout, et pas seulement si x=2.  

"imaginary" does not mean that you can accept contradiction this is not a 
fairy tale.

Using such a word when it comes to complex numbers is an history relief 
because they were first used, centuries ago, without proper definition. 
Mathematician just noticed that "it works" but stayed doubtful before a 
proper consistent definition was coined up.

The word "imaginary" could have been dropped out at that time. There is no 
problem in preserving it as long as we know it has since then a proper 
meaning (completely different to the usual sense). Moreover in math it is 
common (contrary to physics) to use common words with different meanings 
than the usual one (matrix, ring, field, etc.)

Mathematicians are NOT supposed to take care of stupid hypocrite kooks of 
your kind. You don't matter Lengrand.