Skip to main content
10 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Nov 10, 2014 at 13:07 comment added nb1 hmm maybe, yeah.
Nov 10, 2014 at 13:02 comment added hmakholm left over Monica @NikhilBellarykar: Without introducing $i$ at all, I'm not sure how one would even develop (or formulate) a desire to make complex numbers rigorous.
Nov 10, 2014 at 12:55 comment added nb1 It is straightforward when one is armed with the assumption $i^2=1$, I agree. But what happens in the case when one is not? I mean, can one make this seem rigorous $and intuitive$ without introducing $i$ at all?
Nov 10, 2014 at 12:33 comment added hmakholm left over Monica @NikhilBellarykar: It is pretty straightforward if you have already played around with complex numbers in the form $a+bi$ without having a rigorous background for doing so, just under the assumption $i^2=-1$. Then the intention is for the pair $(a,b)$ to represent $a+bi$, and the multiplication rule follows from expanding $(a+bi)(c+di)$ and collecting like terms.
Nov 10, 2014 at 12:15 comment added nb1 While the above is rigorous enough, it is not 'intuitive' or 'straightforward' (so to speak), especially if one looks at the function $g((a,b),(c,d))$. Any reasoning as to why the function$g$ is the one given above would be helpful, because the nonspecialist will always ask- why this function and not something else. I know that the original question is only concerned with the 'non-contradiction' thing. In addition, I think some reasoning would be $nice$, that's all.
Aug 14, 2013 at 14:33 history edited Marc van Leeuwen CC BY-SA 3.0
spelling
Aug 11, 2013 at 10:41 history edited hmakholm left over Monica CC BY-SA 3.0
oops, fix wrong addition :-[
Aug 10, 2013 at 13:13 vote accept FireGarden
Aug 10, 2013 at 13:13 vote accept FireGarden
Aug 10, 2013 at 13:13
Aug 10, 2013 at 13:08 history answered hmakholm left over Monica CC BY-SA 3.0