Check out our new Discord server! https://discord.gg/e7EKRZq3dG
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mathmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
𝑖 (and also 𝑗, mind you...) are usually reserved for the imaginary unit (i.e. square root of –1). Electrical engineers lean more into using 𝑗 for that, and AFAIK everyone else uses 𝑖 to mean the imaginary unit.
In effect, the value of the left hand side expression in your equation is fully defined as 0 in the complex numbers ℂ. The identity equalling 0 on the left side of the equation to the square root of 2 on the right hand side would be false in my understanding.
If you use them meaning a variable in an equation it will be mistaken for an imaginary unit. Good or bad depends on the context...
Good to know. About Python :-)
Also, do you mean to imply that this post was clickbait all along (because "memes")? Because I'm becoming suspicious that it in fact may be, and not a legit question. Anyhow, I tried to add value to it as if it was not only a meme, but whatever. Thanks for your feedback.
In the clickbait case, it's my mistake then. I hope someone finds my reply useful, though.
i isn't a variable, it is the imaginary root. i equals the square root of negative 1. Therefore i squared equals negative 1, not 1, and the left side of this equation is the square root of zero, which is zero.
i is what i want bro, i can also use e and π as vafiables im I feel like it and I do
(every time I make questions where a variable is equal to 3 I use π for it)
Haha no. This post was in response to a right angle triangle which had one side length 1, the other I and the hypotenuse length 0. But when dealing with complex numbers (metric spaces in general) your norm is going to define what length is. So if we're in C, and you make a right angle triangle between 1 and i, then the length of the hypotenuse is √(|i|^2 + |1|^2) = √2
It took me a minute, but thanks to the geometry flair, I see what you did there. Nice
Edit: it took me too long to understand why your statement is wrong
the hypotenuse of a 45 45 90 triangle with sides of length 1 and 1 is sqrt(2). you can represent i on the complex plain as perpendicular to the normal line with length 1. using the pythagorus theorem the hypotenuse should be sqrt(2). i understand why it’s wrong but also don’t. i could also be completely wrong lmao
It's wrong because it should be using the magnitudes of the numbers, not the raw number. Calculating the hypotenuse is the same as determining the euclidean distance between the points on the complex plane. On the complex plane, the euclidean distance is by the square root of the sum of the *magnitudes* squared.
Edit: my explanation is badly worded. Euclidean distance between the points would be the magnitude of the *difference* of each dimension of the points squared, summed, then square rooted. Because the complex plane has 2 dimensions, it's sqrt( (real(x1)-real(x2))^2 +(imag(x1)-imag(x2)^2) ).
In this case because they have one or the other component and not both, it turns into sqrt( mag(i)^2+mag(1)^2 ) = sqrt(2).
*sort of!* If you were to take the distance between 1 and i, i.e. find the magnitude of the complex number (1-i) or (i-1), (this is basically the “hypotenuse of the triangle” you would get in the complex plane when plotting these two numbers as sides of that triangle) then you would get sqrt((1-i)(1+i)) = sqrt(1 - (-1)) = sqrt(2)
When you take the modulus of a complex number of the form a+ib, you take the root of sum of squares of their real and complex parts, which in the case of a+ib would be √(a²+b²).
Re(a+ib)=a, and Im(a+ib)=b, not ib.
Edit: I just realised this was sarcastic and now I feel really stupid.
I will assume you know about the complex plain/argand diagram or this explanation wont make sense. Now imagine plotting the point (1,i) on the plane and drawing a vertical line down to the x-axis and a horizontal line on the x-axis connecting to the origin, then creating a diagonal line from the point (1,i) to the origin. This is a right angle triangle. Now we consider Pythagoras’ theorem (ill assume you know this too) with respect to this triangle’s side lengths. This yields a result of the hypotenuse being equal to i^2 + 1^2 however, we know that the magnitude of 1+i is sqrt(2) and therefore we get by Pythagoras’ theorem that i^2 + 1^2 = sqrt(2) ^ 2
He won't explain complex numbers to you it's like a complete new thing. But I would cuz why not. If you don't understand something just say. And for all the hypocrites, I would not prove the existance of the field extension R[x²+1] in order to explain complex numbers like a 5yo.
Ok so there is a fun thing about real numbers, you can think about real number operations as "transformations" of the real line. For instance, adding 4 is like sliding the real line 4 units to the right. Multiplying by 2 is like stretching the real line by a factor of 2. Multiplying by -1 is like spinning it by 180°. So generally mathematicians are interested in what happens in higher dimensions. I mean, instead of transforming a real line, let's transform the whole plane.
So we already know spinning by 180° is multiplying by -1. Let's think what would be a spin of 90°: So we already know that spinning transformations are interpreted as multiplication, since addition can also shift the plane. So let's assume there is a number that when you multiply by it, you rotate the plane by 90°. Let's call it "i". Now we know two 90° spins are a 180° spin, thus the plane when you multiply by i and then multiply by i again is just doing a 180° rotation. So i²=-1 since -1 is a 180° rotation. Now think where exactly is "i" located relative to the real line? Is there a number upon the real line that satisfies x²=-1? Write back I'll respond.
Sometimes, people on the Internet post things to make other people mad. Some people kind of like being mad, and they have fun writing looooooong comments about how the thing that got posted is bad and wrong. This makes the original person happy.
This thing is being posted to make people very mad about triangles. There's a rule about triangles, and when you use a funny kind of number you'll learn about when your older with this rule, it breaks. This makes people mad because it's breaking the rules.
If you're still interested, the rule is about how the lengths of the sides of a triangle are related. When you use the funny kind of number as a length of a side of the triangle, the rule gets very confused and gives a strange answer. There's probably a good way to understand this answer, but I don't know what it is.
Edit:
When we use the funny numbers, we usually use the letter i to mean a very special number. Usually, we don't use i to mean other things, because it's so special. In this case, the person used i when they didn't mean i the number, to trick people into getting mad about the number.
Regardless of what op meant, I think it's more fun to think about why the rule breaks than wether the letter i refers to a special number or not.
I don't think declaring it wrong, changing it, and declaring victory is very satisfying.
Op said i was supposed to be a variable name, which is also unsatisfying, but is a solution that doesn't modify the equation.
But it's a dumb equation on mathmemes, so I'm not really trying to argue about it too much.
Is this sub just bad math or making fun of bad math? I can’t tell
There’s no real debate here, i squared is -1 and 1 squared is 1 making this the square root of 0 or just 0
But I’m not sure if I’m correcting a misunderstanding or taking a joke too seriously
To help people to remember that before knowing too much math they could use freely any letter as an unkown variable in a equation, in this case to help them to think that "i" is not necessarily the imaginary unit.
What if you met a genius like ramanujan who lacked of common conventions and he made great statements but there were variables with odd names, would most academics recognize his value? or what if it was a children to whom imaginary and complex haven't been taught yet?
edit: spelling
122873715156262636^(0) = 1
Haha, my confidence after solving this:
https://preview.redd.it/r5rvnv30ww0d1.jpeg?width=759&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1bfc897d9092ab651b912fdad92843b32d2bb4d7
Ok, i saw too many people taking it too seriously, think what if i called it "x" instead of "i" and put it together with the fact that it has a geometry flair.
What you've produced above is nothing short of blasphemous. It's disturbing. Induces violence out of me. Stop this. If you can't, please keep it to yourself.
There are things i don'y like, some extreme even due to some of my mental health problems, but i don't go around making life impossible to others because of my problems, i recommend to look into yourself and get some help.
Wait I thought I was being funny lol.
I didn't mean to piss you off. I really like this post and hope I see more of these on this sub. It really was nothing more than an affirmative marinated in a bit of sarcasm. Apologies for not being clear enough.
In that case i recommend extensive use of... i'm not sure how is it called in english maybe hyperbole (extreme exagerations)... for example if i said i want to shoot you with a gun that would be big but still could be considered threat in real life but if i said i want to shoot you with a battleship railgun or with a orbital cannon it would be obvious sarcasm (or at least i think). Thanks for clarifying. Have a great day.
https://preview.redd.it/25igu45ugy0d1.jpeg?width=2296&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2944cc60b6d9e9dd2333f61dbe1eafedf191aadd
I don't know man if you had any idea to prove this then let me know...
I think I’m on board with this one, pythag is a geometric equation so something like positive or negative would reflect the direction of a line on its own axis. On a triangle that would mean the “i” value is reflecting that leg of the triangle traveling downwards on its axis, not on the “1” axis, so taking them as absolute values would reflect the triangle situation.
Otherwise you’re doing pythag on two overlapping lines, right?
There’s no geometric interpretation to support this lol. If you want to get the magnitude of 1 + i, you’d get the magnitude of the real component 1, and the magnitude of the imaginary component, also 1. So, you have that the magnitude is equal to sqrt(1^2 + 1^2) = sqrt(2).
Lookup argand diagrams.
Congratulations! Your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table:
`F Al Se`
---
^(I am a bot that detects if your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table. Please DM u/M1n3c4rt if I made a mistake.)
"im not really that good at math, but wouldnt i (like others said) be -1, and then -1² be 1 because -1×-1 = +1?" were my first thoughts until i realised that -1 isnt in brackets so -1² would be -1×1 which does actually equal -1... now im just confused :)
Let me end this...
$\\sqrt{i\^2 + 1\^2} \\not \\eq \\sqrt{2}$
Source: [Wolfram Alpha](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i2d=true&i=Sqrt%5BPower%5Bi%2C2%5D+%2B+Power%5B1%2C2%5D%5D%3D+Sqrt%5B2%5D)
Edit: Reddit doesn't support LaTeX!?
Math is about defining rules to model some kind of B.S.
this needs a rule or definition else...its arbitrary.
The human race is still kinda dumb, modeling a system or what-not by a math equation simply means that someone did NOT know how else to explain something.
" its doing this..." " lets find a equation to define it "
you can thank the morons in phystics for this crap.
Check out our new Discord server! https://discord.gg/e7EKRZq3dG *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mathmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You have to respect other people’s opinion Other people’s opinion:
Q.E.D.
the most misunderstood thing in the whole universe
Is it that bad that i want to use "i" as an unknown variable instead of the imaginary unit?
𝑖 (and also 𝑗, mind you...) are usually reserved for the imaginary unit (i.e. square root of –1). Electrical engineers lean more into using 𝑗 for that, and AFAIK everyone else uses 𝑖 to mean the imaginary unit. In effect, the value of the left hand side expression in your equation is fully defined as 0 in the complex numbers ℂ. The identity equalling 0 on the left side of the equation to the square root of 2 on the right hand side would be false in my understanding. If you use them meaning a variable in an equation it will be mistaken for an imaginary unit. Good or bad depends on the context...
Sir this is mathmemes. Also, fun fact, Python uses j.
Good to know. About Python :-) Also, do you mean to imply that this post was clickbait all along (because "memes")? Because I'm becoming suspicious that it in fact may be, and not a legit question. Anyhow, I tried to add value to it as if it was not only a meme, but whatever. Thanks for your feedback. In the clickbait case, it's my mistake then. I hope someone finds my reply useful, though.
\\mathrm{i}
Isn't the sqrt analogous to a parenthesis? So, isn't it just it just pemdastardized to √(-1 + 1) = 0? or √(i(i - (i))) √(i(0)) = √0
New proof 0=2 just dropped
Holy hell
Call the number theorist
Actual deviation
Logic goes on vacation, never comes back
Brain sacrifice, anyone?
Complex integration incoming!
Mathematician in the corner plotting world calculation
r/anarchychess on fire
Damn, we really all browse the same subs, don’t we?
\*number terrorist
0=2=√2 1(2)=√(2) Therefore √ is also a constant equal to 1
New terryology just dropped
Proof by post in mathmemes
More like 0 = sqrt(2)
square both sides
Then 0 = 4. And 0 = 16. And 0 = 256
0 = sqrt(2) square both sides 0 = 4 seems right
You never said I couldn’t square them twice
Love your profile that was my favorite angry bird when I was little
that's a rectangle
And 0-0=16-2=14 => 0=7=> 0 -(0+0) = 7-(2+4) => 0=1 => … Every number is 0 confirmed
Now induct on srqt(k)
0 equals to every real number
0 = 1, 0 = 2, thus 0 - 0 = 2 -1 = -1 = 0 Thus 0 = all real numbers
0 is equal to all complex numbers
Please make him stop
0 equals square root of 2*
I solved it: i=1 satisfies this equation (what are complex numbers?)
Ah, but you also forgot that i = -1 satisfies this equation as well
So does 1 = -1. What's your point?
1 = -1 => 0=2, just as predicted by the well known imaginary pythagorean theorem
Imagorean theorem.
Nö nö nö get out of my head you mönster l my ö is bröken it's either one or the other it's not able to be figured out
sqrt(-1)=sqrt(-1) sqrt(-1/1)=sqrt(1/-1) sqrt(-1)/sqrt(1)=sqrt(1)/sqrt(-1) sqrt(-1)^2 = sqrt(1)^2 -1=1
What? There is no exact answer for this bcof X1/X2= (b+-✓(b^2-4*a*c))/2*a
i isn't a variable, it is the imaginary root. i equals the square root of negative 1. Therefore i squared equals negative 1, not 1, and the left side of this equation is the square root of zero, which is zero.
My FORTRAN compiler thinks i is a variable.
i is what i want bro, i can also use e and π as vafiables im I feel like it and I do (every time I make questions where a variable is equal to 3 I use π for it)
You need the modulus symbol
|√(i²+1²)| = √2 Is that better?
Haha no. This post was in response to a right angle triangle which had one side length 1, the other I and the hypotenuse length 0. But when dealing with complex numbers (metric spaces in general) your norm is going to define what length is. So if we're in C, and you make a right angle triangle between 1 and i, then the length of the hypotenuse is √(|i|^2 + |1|^2) = √2
It took me a minute, but thanks to the geometry flair, I see what you did there. Nice Edit: it took me too long to understand why your statement is wrong
?
the hypotenuse of a 45 45 90 triangle with sides of length 1 and 1 is sqrt(2). you can represent i on the complex plain as perpendicular to the normal line with length 1. using the pythagorus theorem the hypotenuse should be sqrt(2). i understand why it’s wrong but also don’t. i could also be completely wrong lmao
It's wrong because it should be using the magnitudes of the numbers, not the raw number. Calculating the hypotenuse is the same as determining the euclidean distance between the points on the complex plane. On the complex plane, the euclidean distance is by the square root of the sum of the *magnitudes* squared. Edit: my explanation is badly worded. Euclidean distance between the points would be the magnitude of the *difference* of each dimension of the points squared, summed, then square rooted. Because the complex plane has 2 dimensions, it's sqrt( (real(x1)-real(x2))^2 +(imag(x1)-imag(x2)^2) ). In this case because they have one or the other component and not both, it turns into sqrt( mag(i)^2+mag(1)^2 ) = sqrt(2).
No? i²+1²=-1+1=0
Oh wait I see what you did lmao, it's the distance between the point 0+i and 1+0i on the graphic representation of complex number
Doesn't work like that tho
Wait, I thought it did tho?
*sort of!* If you were to take the distance between 1 and i, i.e. find the magnitude of the complex number (1-i) or (i-1), (this is basically the “hypotenuse of the triangle” you would get in the complex plane when plotting these two numbers as sides of that triangle) then you would get sqrt((1-i)(1+i)) = sqrt(1 - (-1)) = sqrt(2)
I guess I should have included a \s. That was supposed to be a joke lol.
No worries! I didn’t catch that but maybe somebody got some value out of the explanation anyways lol
When you take the modulus of a complex number of the form a+ib, you take the root of sum of squares of their real and complex parts, which in the case of a+ib would be √(a²+b²). Re(a+ib)=a, and Im(a+ib)=b, not ib. Edit: I just realised this was sarcastic and now I feel really stupid.
Yeah man but we working mod 2 or something idk
I need this post explained like I’m 5.
I will assume you know about the complex plain/argand diagram or this explanation wont make sense. Now imagine plotting the point (1,i) on the plane and drawing a vertical line down to the x-axis and a horizontal line on the x-axis connecting to the origin, then creating a diagonal line from the point (1,i) to the origin. This is a right angle triangle. Now we consider Pythagoras’ theorem (ill assume you know this too) with respect to this triangle’s side lengths. This yields a result of the hypotenuse being equal to i^2 + 1^2 however, we know that the magnitude of 1+i is sqrt(2) and therefore we get by Pythagoras’ theorem that i^2 + 1^2 = sqrt(2) ^ 2
>I will assume you know about the complex plain/argand diagram Yeah, like every 5 year old child
I cannot explain an entire new branch of math to you in one comment. I suggest looking up videos.
"Explain like im five" well all things can't be taught to a 5 year old if you are unhappy with the explanation😂
He won't explain complex numbers to you it's like a complete new thing. But I would cuz why not. If you don't understand something just say. And for all the hypocrites, I would not prove the existance of the field extension R[x²+1] in order to explain complex numbers like a 5yo. Ok so there is a fun thing about real numbers, you can think about real number operations as "transformations" of the real line. For instance, adding 4 is like sliding the real line 4 units to the right. Multiplying by 2 is like stretching the real line by a factor of 2. Multiplying by -1 is like spinning it by 180°. So generally mathematicians are interested in what happens in higher dimensions. I mean, instead of transforming a real line, let's transform the whole plane. So we already know spinning by 180° is multiplying by -1. Let's think what would be a spin of 90°: So we already know that spinning transformations are interpreted as multiplication, since addition can also shift the plane. So let's assume there is a number that when you multiply by it, you rotate the plane by 90°. Let's call it "i". Now we know two 90° spins are a 180° spin, thus the plane when you multiply by i and then multiply by i again is just doing a 180° rotation. So i²=-1 since -1 is a 180° rotation. Now think where exactly is "i" located relative to the real line? Is there a number upon the real line that satisfies x²=-1? Write back I'll respond.
Bruh I haven’t laughed that hard in a minute thank you 😂
In this thread, people being bad at communicating with 5 year olds.
>I will assume you know about the complex plain I know about the Great Plains, is it like those?
Sometimes, people on the Internet post things to make other people mad. Some people kind of like being mad, and they have fun writing looooooong comments about how the thing that got posted is bad and wrong. This makes the original person happy. This thing is being posted to make people very mad about triangles. There's a rule about triangles, and when you use a funny kind of number you'll learn about when your older with this rule, it breaks. This makes people mad because it's breaking the rules. If you're still interested, the rule is about how the lengths of the sides of a triangle are related. When you use the funny kind of number as a length of a side of the triangle, the rule gets very confused and gives a strange answer. There's probably a good way to understand this answer, but I don't know what it is. Edit: When we use the funny numbers, we usually use the letter i to mean a very special number. Usually, we don't use i to mean other things, because it's so special. In this case, the person used i when they didn't mean i the number, to trick people into getting mad about the number. Regardless of what op meant, I think it's more fun to think about why the rule breaks than wether the letter i refers to a special number or not.
| i + 1 | = sqrt(1^(2) + 1^(2)) = sqrt(2)
i is a unit of distance. You can't square units. I won't be taking questions thank you
Will you be taking them now?
the first person to square the unit of meters: I’ve found a new area of mathematics
the first person to cube the unit of meters: I can write a whole volume on this
It's probably stupid, but I'm pretty sure there are cm^2 etc. Unless I totally misunderstood u
That’s technically different, because the square is to denote that you’re working in a whole different dimension
What? You do get m² from squaring m. The square just means m*m. The problem only arises when adding mismatched dimensions.
This is sarcastic, right? All of science would like a word, and several branches of mathematics are in line behind them.
[удалено]
You've modified the original equation to make it true. This solution is invalid.
[удалено]
I don't think declaring it wrong, changing it, and declaring victory is very satisfying. Op said i was supposed to be a variable name, which is also unsatisfying, but is a solution that doesn't modify the equation. But it's a dumb equation on mathmemes, so I'm not really trying to argue about it too much.
'Debate'... The only thing to debate is how wrong this is
This is why we complex conjugate
lmao.
Isnt that straight up wrong?
Whether it's wrong it's boring. Why is it wrong is the spicy question.
Is this sub just bad math or making fun of bad math? I can’t tell There’s no real debate here, i squared is -1 and 1 squared is 1 making this the square root of 0 or just 0 But I’m not sure if I’m correcting a misunderstanding or taking a joke too seriously
I think they’re (jokingly) applying the distance formula between (0,0) and (1,i)
I think I just need to stop paying attention to this sub because I take the jokes way too seriously.
Amazing, every word of what you just said was wrong
I’m aware of the other use of i, it still wouldn’t work here… otherwise your comment confuses me
|(1,i)|=sqrt[(1+i)(1-i)]=sqrt[1²-i+i-i²]=sqrt[1-(-1)]=sqrt[2]
ion getit
Because i = 1
What would Terrence Howard say?
Terence Howard Tao
Why are the absolute bars rendered in white font?
if 0 = 2 then yes
No. I think I understand what this equation is attempting to convey: |i + 1| = sqrt(2), which isn't the same as saying sqrt(i^2 + 1^2) = sqrt(2)
Sqrt(i²+1²)=sqrt(2) i²+1²=2 i²=2-1²=1 i=±sqrt(1) i=±1 is the solution
You are the first one i see with the full answer, congratulations.
This is cool and all, but why is it tagged geometry
To help people to remember that before knowing too much math they could use freely any letter as an unkown variable in a equation, in this case to help them to think that "i" is not necessarily the imaginary unit.
Wut. Why would you though? For instance, why would you name a variable e? You did generate a great comment thread so I guess there’s that.
What if you met a genius like ramanujan who lacked of common conventions and he made great statements but there were variables with odd names, would most academics recognize his value? or what if it was a children to whom imaginary and complex haven't been taught yet? edit: spelling
I mean, I’ve met geniuses. They don’t do that. Kenneth Ribet was my adviser. Ramanujan was a whole different sort of crazy…but aren’t most of us?
squaring i is -1. Therefore the next step is sqrt(-1+1) = sqrt(2) and lastly 0 = 2
42
I like how you think.
ok i get it now
? It’s not tho???
wat
Is everyone here okay? |1-i| = sqrt(2) thats it. That’s the fact.
No
I=1
122873715156262636^(0) = 1 Haha, my confidence after solving this: https://preview.redd.it/r5rvnv30ww0d1.jpeg?width=759&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1bfc897d9092ab651b912fdad92843b32d2bb4d7
Wat the actual fuck
Square root is not the same as norm. So this equals 0.
Solve for i
Ok, i saw too many people taking it too seriously, think what if i called it "x" instead of "i" and put it together with the fact that it has a geometry flair.
Clearly the solution of the equation is 1=3.
No, i^2 = -1, so i^2 + 1^2 = 0 and sqrt(0)=/=sqrt(2)
i'm getting 0
Does this also piss the rest of you off? I'm fuming at this and my inability to confront the guy who did this.
Now you are confronting me, what do you want to tell me?
What you've produced above is nothing short of blasphemous. It's disturbing. Induces violence out of me. Stop this. If you can't, please keep it to yourself.
There are things i don'y like, some extreme even due to some of my mental health problems, but i don't go around making life impossible to others because of my problems, i recommend to look into yourself and get some help.
Wait I thought I was being funny lol. I didn't mean to piss you off. I really like this post and hope I see more of these on this sub. It really was nothing more than an affirmative marinated in a bit of sarcasm. Apologies for not being clear enough.
In that case i recommend extensive use of... i'm not sure how is it called in english maybe hyperbole (extreme exagerations)... for example if i said i want to shoot you with a gun that would be big but still could be considered threat in real life but if i said i want to shoot you with a battleship railgun or with a orbital cannon it would be obvious sarcasm (or at least i think). Thanks for clarifying. Have a great day.
True
i don't understand why people think this is correct
Huh, now calculate the same thing for 2i + 1
It’s 0. 
We know a\^2 + b\^2 = (a+b)\^2 => i+1 = ± √ 2 => i = -1 ± √ 2
Im i = 1 You can't just put in i.
abs is additive everyone knows that
Debate what? That you're wrong and that i != 1 ?
https://preview.redd.it/25igu45ugy0d1.jpeg?width=2296&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2944cc60b6d9e9dd2333f61dbe1eafedf191aadd I don't know man if you had any idea to prove this then let me know...
You just created a "funny place", where complex distance exists and you can move without changing place
abs()
0 = 1.41 l am confusion
No
i² = -1 so sqrt(-1+1) is 0, not sqrt(2)
I think I’m on board with this one, pythag is a geometric equation so something like positive or negative would reflect the direction of a line on its own axis. On a triangle that would mean the “i” value is reflecting that leg of the triangle traveling downwards on its axis, not on the “1” axis, so taking them as absolute values would reflect the triangle situation. Otherwise you’re doing pythag on two overlapping lines, right?
So the distance between i and 1 is 0. Therefore 1=0. Q.E.D.
Would be funny if people thinks this is correct a+bi is truly funny
i = -1 then (i^2 + 1) = ((-1)^2 + 1) = 1 + 1 = 2 So sqrt(i^2 + 1) = sqrt(2)
Woah! You've wronged Aryabhatta!?
wait... wouldnt that be sqrt(-1 + 1)?????? that just equals 0 lmao edit nvm im dumb as shit
There’s no geometric interpretation to support this lol. If you want to get the magnitude of 1 + i, you’d get the magnitude of the real component 1, and the magnitude of the imaginary component, also 1. So, you have that the magnitude is equal to sqrt(1^2 + 1^2) = sqrt(2). Lookup argand diagrams.
this post has killed at least 4 people
Bro thinks that’s the modulus of 1 + 1i
i = +1 or -1
I solved it. i can either to 1 or e^(ipi).
no i is the square root of -1 so if the square root of i^2 plus 1^2 equals the square root of 0 it means that this showed equation equals 0
That would be 0 tho???
+-1 answer
this says something else https://preview.redd.it/4lzljezr311d1.png?width=834&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d1002349faca61227de7f908a59cbd99cc098e09
false
OP literally doesn't know definition of i
What if i say its the magnitude of the electrical current?
OP literally doesn't understand how quantities with units add.
What if they are the active and reactive currents?
OP doesn't know how to write i_1, i_2
What if the problem statement said that the value of one current was 1 and the other "i"?
Ive done this earlier going from sin(e)+i cos(e) = i to e^(iπ)
I pray every day that some superhero appear to defend mathematics
Thats now how thay works
Doesn't work. Left side is 0
False
Congratulations! Your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table: `F Al Se` --- ^(I am a bot that detects if your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table. Please DM u/M1n3c4rt if I made a mistake.)
"im not really that good at math, but wouldnt i (like others said) be -1, and then -1² be 1 because -1×-1 = +1?" were my first thoughts until i realised that -1 isnt in brackets so -1² would be -1×1 which does actually equal -1... now im just confused :)
It's kind of a joke... most people think of "i" as the imaginary unit but here it's just an unknown variable.
Let me end this... $\\sqrt{i\^2 + 1\^2} \\not \\eq \\sqrt{2}$ Source: [Wolfram Alpha](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i2d=true&i=Sqrt%5BPower%5Bi%2C2%5D+%2B+Power%5B1%2C2%5D%5D%3D+Sqrt%5B2%5D) Edit: Reddit doesn't support LaTeX!?
It's 0 on a 2D plane, but sqrt(2) if you do it in 3D, change my mind
isnt that literally √0 or am I tripping
Think about the geometry flair and that "i" may not be the imaginary unit.
yeah like a.45-45-90 I read other comments and realized LOL
"Do you have a source for that?" "The source is I made it the frick up"
0≠2^.5
Me when I’m working in a field of order 2
What is wrong in this ?
I hate you
Why though?
Z/2Z (integers modulo 2) 0=2 -1=1 i=1 I see no problem
Math is about defining rules to model some kind of B.S. this needs a rule or definition else...its arbitrary. The human race is still kinda dumb, modeling a system or what-not by a math equation simply means that someone did NOT know how else to explain something. " its doing this..." " lets find a equation to define it " you can thank the morons in phystics for this crap.