The idea of an infinite past

[Elixir]

Unter,

I recommend you read Roger Zelazny's "Creatures of Light and Darkness".

One of my favorite characters in that book is able to instantly "be" anywhere he can imagine. Other, less endowed characters are only capable of various degrees of temporal manipulation... you seem bound to the latter state, by your own will.

 

[untermensche]

Your insult is as absurd as your claims to have a real imaginary number.

So what is it?

Is a giant spirit of Elvis floating just outside the universe possible?

Should we be diligently looking for it?

 

[Elixir]

Your insult is as absurd as your claims to have a real imaginary number.

The fact that you take it as an insult is revelatory.

Is a giant spirit of Elvis floating just outside the universe possible?

Sure, depending on whatever constraints you put on your definitions of "giant", "spirit" and "universe". I can't rule it out at this point, nor do I see any reason to do so.

Should we be diligently looking for it?

We? No - you should take it on for yourself if you are so inclined. Whatever floats your boat.
I sure hope you're not implying that worthiness of pursuit is a qualifier for "possibility"... that would be #SAD.

 

[untermensche]

The fact that you take it as an insult is revelatory.

You talked about some characters from possibly the one book you apparently have read.

You think a graph demonstrates imaginary numbers could be real.

Sure, depending on whatever constraints you put on your definitions of "giant", "spirit" and "universe". I can't rule it out at this point, nor do I see any reason to do so.

You are going to grant that spirits of dead humans could possibly be real and floating outside the universe based on what definitions?

You pick em.

 

[Elixir]

You think a graph demonstrates imaginary numbers could be real

You asked if I could imagine them as real, and I answered. Still wondering what your hangup is about them. They can be used to produce real, tangible results that even humans can perceive. How many things that don't exist and can't "possibly" exist do THAT??

BTW, are you elderly, distinguished and a scientist? Just wondering...

 

[untermensche]

You think a graph demonstrates imaginary numbers could be real

You asked if I could imagine them as real, and I answered. Still wondering what your hangup is about them. They can be used to produce real, tangible results that even humans can perceive. How many things that don't exist and can't "possibly" exist do THAT??

BTW, are you elderly, distinguished and a scientist? Just wondering...

How is seeing lines and symbols imagining a real imaginary number?

Right now I work as a consultant pharmacist.

I am not distinguished at all.

I am nothing but a tiny pin trying to pop bad ideas.

 

[fast]

It's not a real imaginary number.

I agree that imaginary numbers are not real numbers.

The only out I see for this is if there is a play on words.

There are kinds of real things, but there are not kinds of imaginary things. An imaginary thing isn't truly a thing at all, so classifying imaginary entities as if they really exist would be odd.

The term, "real" opposes the word, "imaginary." To say of something that it's imaginary is to deny the very something alluded to.

The word play I have in mind is if "imaginary" isn't to be held to same philosophical standard. To illustrate, I have 26 cards labeled "real" and 26 cards labeled "imaginary." Each card has a number. Numbers we regard as imaginary are listed as imaginary. In this sense, both sets of cards are real. Being labeled as imaginary doesn't make it so. In that same vein, the question for mathematicians is if "real" and "imaginary" are held to the same philosophical standard as those terms would otherwise be used.

In other words, a lot needs to be discussed to determine whether or not "real numbers" is the same as "real" "numbers", etc. The difference between labels and referents is important here. Not all green peanuts are green peanuts when "green" has different meanings.

 

[Beer With Straw]

You are going to grant that spirits of dead humans could possibly be real and floating outside the universe based on what definitions?

You pick em.

I'd say the probability to such an event could not be predicted.

In the future, however, we don't know.

 

[bilby]

It's not a real imaginary number.

I agree that imaginary numbers are not real numbers.

The only out I see for this is if there is a play on words.

There are kinds of real things, but there are not kinds of imaginary things. An imaginary thing isn't truly a thing at all, so classifying imaginary entities as if they really exist would be odd.

The term, "real" opposes the word, "imaginary." To say of something that it's imaginary is to deny the very something alluded to.

The word play I have in mind is if "imaginary" isn't to be held to same philosophical standard. To illustrate, I have 26 cards labeled "real" and 26 cards labeled "imaginary." Each card has a number. Numbers we regard as imaginary are listed as imaginary. In this sense, both sets of cards are real. Being labeled as imaginary doesn't make it so. In that same vein, the question for mathematicians is if "real" and "imaginary" are held to the same philosophical standard as those terms would otherwise be used.

In other words, a lot needs to be discussed to determine whether or not "real numbers" is the same as "real" "numbers", etc. The difference between labels and referents is important here. Not all green peanuts are green peanuts when "green" has different meanings.

Beware of the difference between Imaginary numbers, which are real numbers and also Real numbers; and imaginary numbers, which are neither Real nor real. I am not aware that there are any truly imaginary numbers, other than in the sense that all numbers, including Real numbers (and therefore Imaginary numbers which are a subset of Real numbers), are imaginary.

The square roots of negative numbers are Imaginary and Real, but they are no more imaginary than are the square roots of positive numbers, which are always Real, but which may not be real, and are never Imaginary. Whether Real numbers are real or imaginary is a philosophical question, but as far as mathematics is concerned, Real and Imaginary numbers are either both real; or both imaginary, depending on your philosophical position.

It's a confusing terminology - but far from the only one in mathematics, science or philosophy. We all just have to try to understand the difference and recognize (or request clarification of) which is intended if the intent is unclear.

If Real numbers are real, then Imaginary numbers must also be real, because they are a subset of the Real numbers.

 

[fast]

It's not a real imaginary number.

I agree that imaginary numbers are not real numbers.

The only out I see for this is if there is a play on words.

There are kinds of real things, but there are not kinds of imaginary things. An imaginary thing isn't truly a thing at all, so classifying imaginary entities as if they really exist would be odd.

The term, "real" opposes the word, "imaginary." To say of something that it's imaginary is to deny the very something alluded to.

The word play I have in mind is if "imaginary" isn't to be held to same philosophical standard. To illustrate, I have 26 cards labeled "real" and 26 cards labeled "imaginary." Each card has a number. Numbers we regard as imaginary are listed as imaginary. In this sense, both sets of cards are real. Being labeled as imaginary doesn't make it so. In that same vein, the question for mathematicians is if "real" and "imaginary" are held to the same philosophical standard as those terms would otherwise be used.

In other words, a lot needs to be discussed to determine whether or not "real numbers" is the same as "real" "numbers", etc. The difference between labels and referents is important here. Not all green peanuts are green peanuts when "green" has different meanings.

Beware of the difference between Imaginary numbers, which are real numbers but not Real numbers; and imaginary numbers, which are neither Real nor real. I am not aware that there are any truly imaginary numbers, other than in the sense that all numbers, including Real numbers, are imaginary.

Thank you for that clarification.

 

[bilby]

Beware of the difference between Imaginary numbers, which are real numbers but not Real numbers; and imaginary numbers, which are neither Real nor real. I am not aware that there are any truly imaginary numbers, other than in the sense that all numbers, including Real numbers, are imaginary.

Thank you for that clarification.

My apologies, but there is an error on my part in that quote (I have edited it out of my post); Imaginary numbers are both real numbers and Real numbers. Not all Real numbers are Imaginary, but all Imaginary numbers are Real, and so if Real numbers are real, Imaginary numbers must therefore also be real, because they are Real.

The question of whether Real numbers are or are not real, remains open.

I hope that helps.

 

[fast]

Beware of the difference between Imaginary numbers, which are real numbers but not Real numbers; and imaginary numbers, which are neither Real nor real. I am not aware that there are any truly imaginary numbers, other than in the sense that all numbers, including Real numbers, are imaginary.

Thank you for that clarification.

My apologies, but there is an error on my part in that quote (I have edited it out of my post); Imaginary numbers are both real numbers and Real numbers. Not all Real numbers are Imaginary, but all Imaginary numbers are Real, and so if Real numbers are real, Imaginary numbers must therefore also be real, because they are Real.

The question of whether Real numbers are or are not real, remains open.

I hope that helps.

That doesn't seem to mesh quite right. You said Imaginary number are real, yet the question is open as to whether Real numbers are real?

At any rate, the thrust of my overarching question has been answered.

As to details, there is the everyday common opposition between "real" and "imaginary," such that the assertion of the former is a denial of the latter. For instance, to say blackholes are real is to deny that they're imaginary. Everything before us is real. Nothing that is in fact before us can in fact be imaginary. Maybe there is debate about whether numbers are real. I think they are. If I'm mistaken and they're not real, then by default, they are imaginary, which isn't to say there is something called numbers which are imaginary but instead that there isn't in fact something.

The other notion which you've used capital letters to denote would be "Real Numbers" and "Imaginary Numbers." These are labels or complex terms that denote a specialized meaning that is not solely gleaned from a dictionary but instead a glossary.

There are Real Numbers, and there are Imaginary Numbers. We can even list instances of each. If I'm correct, then numbers are real and can be subdivided into those two groups: 1) real numbers that are Real Numbers and 2) real numbers that are Imaginary Numbers. There are no imaginary numbers, as that is to say there is something that exists which doesn't. Recall, if something is imaginary, there is no something at all.

 

[bilby]

My apologies, but there is an error on my part in that quote (I have edited it out of my post); Imaginary numbers are both genuinely numbers and Real numbers. Not all Real numbers are Imaginary, but all Imaginary numbers are Real, and so if Real numbers are existent, Imaginary numbers must therefore also be existent, because they are Real.

The question of whether Real numbers are or are not real, remains open.

I hope that helps.

That doesn't seem to mesh quite right. You said Imaginary number are real, yet the question is open as to whether Real numbers are real?

Not quite; Imaginary numbers are Real, and if Real numbers are real (as I believe them to be) then so are Imaginary numbers. But if Real numbers are imaginary, then Imaginary numbers obviously must be imaginary too. Imaginary numbers are real numbers in the sense that they are just as much numbers as any Real numbers. The term real numbers is not quite the same as real numbers - I have edited the above quote to (I hope) clarify.

I have used two different meanings of 'real', plus a third similar word 'Real' which has a technical definition different from either.

At any rate, the thrust of my overarching question has been answered.

As to details, there is the everyday common opposition between "real" and "imaginary," such that the assertion of the former is a denial of the latter. For instance, to say blackholes are real is to deny that they're imaginary. Everything before us is real. Nothing that is in fact before us can in fact be imaginary. Maybe there is debate about whether numbers are real. I think they are. If I'm mistaken and they're not real, then by default, they are imaginary, which isn't to say there is something called numbers which are imaginary but instead that there isn't in fact something.

The other notion which you've used capital letters to denote would be "Real Numbers" and "Imaginary Numbers." These are labels or complex terms that denote a specialized meaning that is not solely gleaned from a dictionary but instead a glossary.

There are Real Numbers, and there are Imaginary Numbers. We can even list instances of each. If I'm correct, then numbers are real and can be subdivided into those two groups: 1) real numbers that are Real Numbers and 2) real numbers that are Imaginary Numbers. There are no imaginary numbers, as that is to say there is something that exists which doesn't. Recall, if something is imaginary, there is no something at all.

Yes.

And Imaginary Numbers are (a subset of) Real Numbers. So if all Real Numbers are real, all Imaginary Numbers must also be real.

 

[fast]

I get the message that Imaginary Numbers are just as real as Real Numbers. I support that.

What I don't get is why they're not on the same level. I don't see the need to say that Imaginary Numbers are a subset of Real Numbers. What's wrong with no Real Number is an Imaginary Number AND no Imaginary Number is a Real Number AND both Imaginary Numbers and Real Numbers are real numbers?

 

[Kharakov]

Unter,

I recommend you read Roger Zelazny's "Creatures of Light and Darkness".

One of my favorite characters in that book is able to instantly "be" anywhere he can imagine. Other, less endowed characters are only capable of various degrees of temporal manipulation... you seem bound to the latter state, by your own will.

View attachment 15018

Yeah, so how long before you starve to death?

 

[fast]

Two different meanings of real? Plus Real.

There is real: not imaginary
And there is real: genuine
And there is Real: not Imaginary

I agree with your sentiment that Imaginary Numbers are not 'counterfeit' in any way. Their currency in the number system is just as deserving as Real Numbers.

 

[bilby]

Two different meanings of real? Plus Real.

There is real: not imaginary
And there is real: genuine
And there is Real: not Imaginary

I agree with your sentiment that Imaginary Numbers are not 'counterfeit' in any way. Their currency in the number system is just as deserving as Real Numbers.

Exactly. It's only when you combine Real and Imaginary that things start to become Complex.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Beware of the difference between Imaginary numbers, which are real numbers but not Real numbers; and imaginary numbers, which are neither Real nor real. I am not aware that there are any truly imaginary numbers, other than in the sense that all numbers, including Real numbers, are imaginary.

Thank you for that clarification.

My apologies, but there is an error on my part in that quote (I have edited it out of my post); Imaginary numbers are both real numbers and Real numbers. Not all Real numbers are Imaginary, but all Imaginary numbers are Real, and so if Real numbers are real, Imaginary numbers must therefore also be real, because they are Real.

The question of whether Real numbers are or are not real, remains open.

I hope that helps.

Do you have any definitions of "Imaginary numbers" and "Real numbers", according to which Imaginary numbers are Real?

- - - Updated - - -

Two different meanings of real? Plus Real.

There is real: not imaginary
And there is real: genuine
And there is Real: not Imaginary

I agree with your sentiment that Imaginary Numbers are not 'counterfeit' in any way. Their currency in the number system is just as deserving as Real Numbers.

Exactly. It's only when you combine Real and Imaginary that things start to become Complex.

Sure, but in that case, the Imaginary numbers are not a subset of the Real numbers.

 

[Juma]

Two different meanings of real? Plus Real.

There is real: not imaginary
And there is real: genuine
And there is Real: not Imaginary

I agree with your sentiment that Imaginary Numbers are not 'counterfeit' in any way. Their currency in the number system is just as deserving as Real Numbers.

Exactly. It's only when you combine Real and Imaginary that things start to become Complex.

i is Imaginary. i*i+i is a combination of (one and the same) Imaginary number and yet it is Complex.
Thing is that i*i=-1 makes Imaginary numbers a different beast than Reals.
That fact that you can write complex numbers as c=a+b*i where a and b are Real doesnt make Imaginary numbers a subset of Real.

 

[Juma]

I get the message that Imaginary Numbers are just as real as Real Numbers. I support that.

What I don't get is why they're not on the same level. I don't see the need to say that Imaginary Numbers are a subset of Real Numbers. What's wrong with no Real Number is an Imaginary Number AND no Imaginary Number is a Real Number AND both Imaginary Numbers and Real Numbers are real numbers?

What do you mean by ”real number”? All numbers are properties of the human mind they are real in the same way as names are real.