Re: y=sqrt(x)+2

Le 16/02/2025 à 21:50, "Chris M. Thomasson" a écrit :

On 2/16/2025 11:04 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 16/02/2025 à 19:39, Richard Damon a écrit :

On 2/16/25 9:27 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 16/02/2025 à 02:42, Richard Damon a écrit :

>
>
4 * i^4

>
Absolutely.
>
J'avais toujours dit que les Richard étaient des êtres exceptionnels.
>
Nota bene:
4 * i^4 = -4

>
No, i^4 - 1, since i^2 = -1, by definition.

 When definitions are incorrect, the definitions should be ignored.

 Go ahead an ignore the complex numbers. Why should we care?
 [...]

That's not what I said.
I spoke of "definitions" and not of "matter".
I was saying that false and lame definitions should be ignored, and replaced by truer, clearer, more beautiful definitions.
It's not that complex numbers should not be studied, it's that if we study them, we must study them correctly and with the right definitions.
Once that's done, everything that remains can be thrown in the trash.
Let's take the very definition of the entity i. Mathematicians propose definitions so ugly, even false, that it will make future generations laugh.
It is these falsehoods and distortions that deserve to disappear.
I said the same thing about special relativity, and I am then considered in several ways (a madman who denies everything, a crank who destroys what is good).
All this is not very serious on the part of men.
N.B. Artificial intelligence can be used to straighten out definitions. I have already heard it say wonderful things as long as we enter the right data.
R.H.