• Sasha [They/Them]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Matrix representations in general, if that counts?

    Complex numbers, polynomials, the derivative operator, spinors etc. they’re all matrices. Numbers are just shorthand labels for certain classes of matrices, fight me.

      • Sasha [They/Them]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I’m just being silly, but I mean that if everything can be represented as a matrix then there’s a point of view where things like complex numbers are just “names” of specific matrices and the rules that apply to those “names” are just derived from the relevant matrix operations.

        Essentially I’m saying that the normal form is an abstract short hand notation of the matrix representation. The matrices are of course significantly harder and more confusing to work with, but in some cases the richness of that structure is very beautiful and insightful.

        (I’m particularly in love with the fact one can derive spinors and their transforms purely from the spacetime/Lorentz transforms. It’s a really satisfying exercise and it’s some beautiful algebra/group theory.)

  • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    23 hours ago

    ε, the base of the dual numbers.

    It’s a nonzero hypercomplex number that squares to zero, enabling automatic differentiation.

    • palordrolap@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Came here to say this, but since it’s already here, I’ll throw in a bonus mind-melting fact: ε itself has no square root in the dual numbers.

      • DoGeeseSeeGod@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        As a not good at math person, advanced math sounds hella fake sometimes. Like almost a parody of math. I accept that it’s real but part of me will always think it’s some inside joke or a secret society cult for the lamest god.

        • palordrolap@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          A lot of “advanced” maths comes from asking “What if this was a thing, how would that work? Would it even work?”, so you could say there’s a deliberate sense of “fake” about it.

          Dual numbers come from “What if there was another number that isn’t 0 which when multiplied by itself you get 0?”

          Basic dual numbers (and complex numbers) are no harder than basic algebra, shallow end of the pool kind of stuff, but then not everyone is comfortable getting in the water in the first place, and that’s OK too.

    • november@lemmy.vg
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Complex numbers 🤝 Split-complex numbers 🤝 Dual numbers

      All super rad.

    • Ad4mWayn3@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      23 hours ago

      They are still real numbers. Specifically uncomputable, normal numbers. Which means their rational expansion contain every natural number.

      • ItsLysandreAgain@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        Français
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Oops, I misunderstood what an uncomputable is…

        In that case, I would say Infinity-Infinity. This time, it’s truly not a number.

  • untakenusername@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    19 hours ago

    i=sqrt(-1) is nice, but im hoping someone finds a use for the number x where |x| = -1 or some nonsense like that because it looks fun to mess with

    • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      21 hours ago

      You only get NaN for division by zero if you divide 0 by 0 in IEEE floating point. For X/0 with X ≠ 0, you get sign(X)•Inf.

      And for real numbers, X/0 has to be left undefined (for all real X) or else the remaining field axioms would allow you to derive yourself into contradictions. (And this extends to complex numbers too.)