The way I see it, negative numbers don't really exist. When you use a negative number for distance, for instance, you have the negative numbers be to the left of a reference and the positive numbers to the right. What you are doing, then, is storing a vector in a number: You have direction and magnitude in a number. - That shouldn't be. But, since we can't find an absolute reference (i.e., there's no "absolute left"), we pick an arbitrary reference and use negative numbers. Using vectors would add more complexity, and it works fine the other way.

The square root of negative numbers... that's kind of different, but sort of the same. When we work a problem, two square roots of negative numbers may show up, but when they are multiplied together, everything comes out fine. Thus, we must let negative numbers exist - at least for the intermediate steps. Just as we couldn't define an "absolute left" for direction, we can't define an "absolutely finished" for our problems. Do imaginary numbers exist in intermediate steps? Well, I'll have to think about that. I guess so. Um, right?

It's sort of like potential energy, when we don't use it, does it exist? (Of course, potential energy is mass, but you know what I'm saying.)

Ugh, havn't you guys figured out already that *nothing* really exists? Go watch the Matrix already.... gosh...

Of course it (fill in anything you please) doesn't really exist. It's all just part of this terrible nightmare I'm having.

Do you really believe in that video? Rene Descartes is really a genius. He never knew that somebody will make a film like the matrix from his theories. Anyway it's only a theory and to me it's only half real.

Is that why I'm having such a headache?...
To quote Monty Python:
"...and Rene Descartes was a drunken fart,
I drink therefor I am"

Everybody so seems to have ignored the possibility that sqrt(-1) may really exist in a different space-time continuum - possibly a superset of our four dimensional one.

I'm no mathematician but.....

Hello davcefai. Can you explain what you mean? Where did you get that info?

Hey (no offence but) you're not a physicist are you?

It seems like every time I meet a physicist and they're having problems with whatever theory they're working on, they just luurrrrrve adding on extra dimensions to patch up their model!

Jones: The equations are simply broken!
Hemson: ...It's ok. Just add on a few more dimensions. If we keep slapping them on, maybe eventually we'll get to a dimension somewhere where mathematical laws simply don't exist
Jones: Yay! Well, as long as ours as less dimensions than String Theory, we'll be alright
Hemson: Break out the chocolate biscuits

DISCLAIMER!: All the physicists I've ever met have all been very nice people. I've no intention of insulting physicists any further than they deserve (possibly?)!

Yeah! I just *love* where this one is headed! I also like how we get to control whether negative numbers exist or not. Man should not have been given this much power!

.

konsolebox:
I didn't "get" the information from anywhere in particular. However the possibility of the existence of more dimensions than the 4 we are aware of exists. As the post after yours (by the fractional portion of pi) says, physicists are always invoking extra dimensions to make the facts fit the theory.


I remember a Physical Chemistry lecture where about 10 minutes into the lecture, the lecturer had created 24 extra dimensions and then dropped the original 4. he carried on in these 24 dimensions for 45 minutes and then dropped back into normal space time.

Only 2 out of 11 people were still with him and one of them is today the Dean of Science.

The point I'm tryimg to make is that, assuming that these extra dimensions exist (and hopefully they do so we can have hyperspatial travel) then imaginary numbers may real there and, you never know, irrational ones may be rational.

Why not? We do that already by prefixing them with '-'. Remember that we use theories, numbers and stuff because they're useful. One thing with every engineering career is that it doesn't mess with epistemology, ontology & metaphysics unless necessary.

Yeah, right.

By asking "does the square root of negative numbers exist ?" we may be going too far. Are we implying positive numbers exist also ?
Do things "exist" because we think of them ?
At least they exist on our minds... So, what do we mean by "existing" ?

If we say that positive numbers exist as some things appear to exist to us, then we're just acknowledging the most visible utilitiarian nature of positive numbers. They "exist" because you can apply the relationships that "exist" between numbers to "real objects". But we see other people find "imaginary" numbers to be useful also. The difference to me is only of grades.

before I passed out after that 26 of vodka I swear I saw the sqrt of -0.5
so -1's should be there so
then again the tequila monster was drinking beer so maybe it is man's imagination...

i, the mathmatical geen-yus, of course chose yes, we have no bananas. banana has 6 letters and 6 minus 7 is -1

therefor, our conclusion: -1

Yes the square root of negative 1 exists. You can even buy one at Bizrate.com.

mathematics is only a theroy,
still i is darn usefull
(or j if you are a geek oe elcetronics

Has anyone else noticed that under the list of similar threads (just below) it says 'user vincent does not exist'?
See, that's scary, what if it's me one day?