Re: About Hachel's alternate "complex" numbers

Le 03/03/2025 à 18:31, guido wugi a écrit :

Op 1/03/2025 om 15:15 schreef Python:

I think he has problems with Lorentz features as well :)

 Absolutely not.
 

A bit of a compensation for his absurd i-rules?

I have no problem with Mr. Poincaré's transformations given for the first time in their positive form well before Mr. Einstein's plagiarism.
I don't even have a problem extending them from uniform media to rotating media.
<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?aR0_yJtT5efYPVxrttKBVvw5pAY@jntp/Data.Media:1>
My ideas on the nature of the imaginary i are to be classified in the clarity and beauty of mathematics. What do mathematicians say? That i²=-1? What a great deal! They do not define i, but its square.
This amounts to saying that we must define the number 3 by saying that "3 is the number that is the cubic root of 27". It's not that it's wrong, it's that it's ridiculous. As ridiculous and childish as saying that a swallow is a swallow and that a square is not round.
I define i as the unit whose exponent x will always make equal to -1.
So it is something completely different from what mathematicians say.
As for (-i) depending on the even or odd exponent, its value changes sign continuously. (-i)^8=-1 ; (-i)^9=+1, etc...
That is what I said.
 <http://nemoweb.net/jntp?aR0_yJtT5efYPVxrttKBVvw5pAY@jntp/Data.Media:2>
R.H. --
<https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=aR0_yJtT5efYPVxrttKBVvw5pAY@jntp>