Re: Log i = 0

On 05/25/2025 06:02 AM, sobriquet wrote:

Op 25/05/2025 om 14:21 schreef Richard Hachel:

Le 25/05/2025 à 05:07, sobriquet a écrit :

Op 24/05/2025 om 21:26 schreef Richard Hachel:

Doctor Hachel said :
>
Log i = 0
>
i is a second root of f(x)=Log i
>
N.B. Log is ln.
>
R.H.
>

>
>
Somehow I have more confidence in wolfram alpha than a random usenet
crackpot.
>
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=ln%28i%29

>
You have every right to your certainties.
>
R.H.

>
There is no certainty in math. But when you encounter conflicting claims
online you have to assess the probabilities that either side is wrong in
a nuanced way, taking into account various sources of information and
how they justify their claims and whether their approach tends to yield
useful results in practice (like technology made possible by scientific
insights and the math that provides the conceptual underpinnings).

There are various approaches to theories of "truth",
structured, say, we're structuralists, there's a model of it thusly,
the body of all relations mathematical, a theory at all.
So, the "correspondence" and "coherence" and "pragmatist"
theories of truth sort of effect after, "logicist positivism",
sort of a pick-them-up-and-put-them-down caprice,
then when somebody says "Tarski truth",
those are logicist positivism's and just old-wrapped-as-new
the empiricist and inductive, which are fair means to apply
observation and inference, yet merely a half-account,
since that there's a true theory at all, rather seems
to precede, any such notion of relevance and reason and
rationality about reality and it's nature.
Then, in complex numbers, I've been reading Struick's history
of mathematics, is that the first construction of an imaginary
root of -1, was Bombelli, in the time of Viete, in the surrounds
of the Cossists, yet, anyone today can notice that the imaginary
"i" is merely among the roots of negative one, square roots,
and among fourth roots of unity, then also, that the definition
of division in usual complex numbers, is also non-unique.
That there's a unique true theory, of truth, a real truth
and a true truth, is for concepts like univocity yet mostly
it's the entire grounds for reason at all, otherwise absent.
Yes, most have more confidence in wolfram alpha than
random usenet crackpots.
Yet, I trust me, that's who.