• ccunning@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    You laugh now, but just wait 3 years until this morphs into the next right-wing cult conspiracy theory…

  • Yondoza@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    You think one imaginary number is crazy? Just wait till you learn about quaternions. One real number and 3 imaginary numbers forming a four dimensional coordinate system. It’s the basis for quantum mechanics and most video game engines. Who thinks of this shit?

    • sparkle@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      Cymraeg
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Quaternions? Basis of quantum mechanics? Pretty sure that’s not right at all. A lot of games use them for rotations in place of rotation matrices though I suppose.

      • 0ops@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Iirc, using quaternions for rotations let’s you avoid “gimbal locking”.

    • linja@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      6 months ago

      Quaternions are not the basis for quantum mechanics. Biquaternions have some applications in quantum field theory, but there are many areas of quantum mechanics where there’s no need or space for anything above complex.

      • Yondoza@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        Oops my bad, it’s been a while. I thought the Hamiltonian used quaternions, but I guess that’s just complex numbers.

        • linja@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          The Hamiltonian using Hamilton’s numbers? Now I think about it it is a bit silly that two entirely separate yet highly propinquitous concepts have such similar names. Physics really went downhill once humans started writing it down.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      The general concept is called Spinors, Quaternions are just one representation. Here’s a great video on them. In physics they’re using them because they’re necessary (video explains), in computer graphics we’re using them because they’re algorithmically convenient, very cheap to compute and ignore that whole half-spin thing. It’s one of those instances where it’s cheaper to compute useless information and then throw it away as opposed to avoiding to compute it.

      They’re also absolutely impossible to deal with when authoring stuff, as in rotating things in Blender, it’s just a representation on the backend. Quaternions would avoid gimbal lock but when authoring you really rather deal with that than a 4-dimensional hypersphere.

  • Snowclone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    6 months ago

    But isn’t it fascinating that NASA used theoretical math that didn’t have an intended use by the mathmaticians that developed it years ago, but it ended up working well with orbital entry calculations?

    There’s a lot of theoretical math that ends up being very real.

    • uis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Quaternions? They were used as intended - to represent rotation.

  • morrowind@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Also mathematicians making them entirely self-consistent then using them in regular maths until we’re all forced to deal with them and accept them as normal

    Instead of just admitting they were wrong

  • uis@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Mathematicians dug up quaternions. Double the imagination. They aren’t Complex for comprehention.

  • Dasnap@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    6 months ago

    Jujutsu Kaisen characters pulling yet another ‘binding vow’ out their arse instead of learning to fight better.

  • profdc9@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    6 months ago

    Little known fact: the imaginary numbers are the algebraic closure of the irrational numbers.

  • linja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    I know this is a joke, but wrong about what, exactly? I don’t get it.

    Also, and maybe this has something to do with the joke I’m not getting, the way complex numbers are motivated in school is a lie, and a stupid one. Mathematicians were perfectly comfortable with certain equations having no solutions; the problem was when their equations told them there were no solutions when they could see the solutions: the curve x3 - 15x + 4 crosses the x-axis, but Cardano’s cubic formula gives up due to negative square roots. Imaginary numbers were originally no more than an ephemeral reasoning tool, and were only reluctantly accepted as entities in their own right because of how damn useful they were.

      • linja@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        If I’m not meant to think about it until understanding emerges, then that means it should be immediately understandable without thinking. It is not.

        • The_Biggest_Cum@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          It is, actually

          The numbers are imaginary, thus theyte not real, thus the math magicians (not gonna undo autocorrect there) are wrong and refuse to admit it because they insist imaginary numbers are real

          Don’t apply actual knowledge of what imaginary numbers are for this exercise

          • linja@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            6 months ago

            Ok, so this is a “joke” which is only funny to people who do not understand the context, and moreover jump to insane, unsubstantiated conclusions rather than expending an infinitesimal measure of effort to understand something they haven’t seen before. It’s active mockery of the very concept of being open to new ideas.

            • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              6 months ago

              No, the joke plays on the two meanings of “imaginary” - one being “made up, not real”, and the other being the mathematical construct. The fact that you don’t get it doesn’t make it mockery, it just means you don’t get it.

        • lud@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Sometimes it’s better to just accept that you don’t get the joke and move on.

          • linja@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            I might not find a joke funny, or I might not have the necessary context to appreciate it; that’s “not getting” a joke. If it’s possible to have too much context to appreciate a “joke”, it’s at the expense of people who know more than the audience.

              • linja@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                6 months ago

                It might seem harmless, but the purpose of a joke is to draw a distinction between those who get it and those who don’t, fostering a sense of community. In this “joke”, the in-group is people who don’t know something; the community ideal fostered there is that knowledge is undesirable, that anything that seems unintuitive to the uninformed mind is inherently ridiculous. The “joke” has no effect if it doesn’t do this. Entertaining the idea without challenge is dangerous.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Imaginary numbers were originally no more than an ephemeral reasoning tool, and were only reluctantly accepted as entities in their own right because of how damn useful they were.

      That, there, is the story of pretty much all maths. There were occasional mentions of zero and debates about whether it’s a number or not in old Europe, it only became widely accepted once base 10 became popular. And people still can’t agree whether the natural numbers contain it!

      • linja@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Hah. Church tried to ban it because it was “associated with illegal money trading”, I remember that. What is it about maths that makes non-mathematicians think themselves qualified to judge matters they don’t understand?

  • egeres@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    Fucking pathethic, just admit you’re all wrong, they even made a bullshit-number-generator to keep making up new stupid-useless-made-up-numbers that serve no purpose at all in any discipline of science, it’s disgusting