You should be able to figure this out.

Isnt it "i" or something

Highschool Algebra was a long time ago

It's imaginary, you faggot.

>>36669384
what's there to figure out? it's just i

>>36669384
It is i
or it is (e^(i*pi))^(1/2)

Like every bit of love and hope you'd ever have in your life, OP. The answer is imaginary.

It's impossible to get a square root from a negative number

>/r9k/ is too stupid to know what euler's number is

>>36669451
t. brainlet
How's algebra 1 been treating you lately?

>>36669384
My gf is like the square root of -100
A solid 10 but also imaginary

>>36669465
>t. double brainlet
i is called "imaginary" for a reason, you faggot

>>36669465
i'm to smart for algebra after sum/multiplication

>>36669434
or it is
-1*(ln(-1)/pi)

which, after converting this from your formula, looks absolutely idiotic, because logs can't = negatives, if it has the base of a positive number.

>>36669494
The square root of -100 is just 10i

>>36669518
You can use imaginary numbers though genius. They are just a different type.

>>36669384
I do not get this, I only graduated high school.

>>36669551
10 times imaginary.

>>36669434
>>36669541
the equation is e^(ipi) = -1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_0yfvm0UoU

>>36669455
That's not even fucking euler's number. sqrt(-1) is i, or the imaginary constant.

Euler's number is
lim n->inf (1 + 1/n)^n
approximately 2.718281

>>36669551
This isn't complex. Just go with it.

Imaginary is a number now

Math is just a retarded Asian meme to keep my people down

>>36669600
yeah, but if you square root both sides, you get it to equal i. Also, you can solve for i using natural logs.

>>36669564
>You can use imaginary numbers though
You can also "calculate" the volume of 19th dimension cube.

Being able to use the term (-1)^1/2 doesn't mean you can actually solve the term you doofus.

>>36669627
>your people
retards?

>>36669384
It's i and -i, or j and -j, if you're already using i for electrical current.

t. engineer

>>36669610
you can use euler's number to solve for i.

>>36669637
>you can solve for i using natural logs.
You're literally just rearranging the equation if you do that.

The video I posted actually explained why that equation makes mathematical sense.

>>36669654
You use I for current, why would you use lowercase?

File: maymay15.jpg (141KB, 900x461px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 900x461px

>>36669384
I'm pretty sure that's an irrational number.

an i
an i i i i i

>>36669654
Why do we even use i for current? Neither amp or current start with i.

>>36669700
You'd be quite wrong

>>36669740
i for intensity, because the French put everything backwards like intensite de courant.

>>36669384
-0.00025000025,,,

File: 1482062407914.jpg (423KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 800x800px

>>36669647
That's the same reasoning that you would use for negative numbers. How can you have a negative quantity of something?

And imaginary numbers are used for heaps of real world practical applications, especially in engineering, so not really applicable to what you're trying to say

What is the square root of -1? The answer is nonexistent because you cannot derive negative numbers from squaring. Any EVEN power can only return positive values

>>36669773
At that point it might as well be i for "i suck dick"

File: maymay20.png (355KB, 810x710px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 810x710px

>>36669747
I thought I was smart, explain.

>>36670036
Complex numbers lay on the complex number line. Irrational numbers are on the real number line.

>>36669465
>imaginary
It's a bad way to call them. In engineering we call them "complex" numbers because they're very much real, just somewhat more abstract than regular numbers

>>36670157
Meant to originally quote
>>36669518

>>36670109
Technically, there are irrational complex numbers
He's still wrong, as i is not one of them

>>36670247
They're still complex. If you assume by "irrational" he meant the set of irrational reals then the answer is what I said.

>>36670310
>If you assume by "irrational" he meant the set of irrational reals then the answer is what I said
It's not about what he said, you said:
>Irrational numbers are on the real number line.
Which is to what i responded by saying that, technically, they're on the complex number line as well

>>36670387
There's a misunderstanding somewhere. I'm saying that complex numbers aren't irrational. I'm assuming he was talking about the OP, so 1i wouldn't be irrational since it's a complex number.
I get that there are irrational complex numbers, but complex and real numbers are separate (aside from 0). At least that's what I remember learning.
Am I wrong?

>>36670157
But they're still pretty simple

>>36670436
Not wrong, i think i'm just being autistic about the way you express yourself. You say:
>so 1i wouldn't be irrational since it's a complex number
Which implies that a number that's complex can't be irrational, when it can

>>36670541
It wouldn't be an irrational real. I took >>36669700 as saying he thinks complex numbers are irrational, and I'm trying to say that's incorrect and why.

>>36669384
If there is no number that fulfills that condition, just invent one.

>>36669575
Surely they taught you imaginary numbers in high school.

>>36669384
>be me in high school
>math class
>not paying attention most of the time
>teacher gives printed set of questions to do in class and distribute it to everyone
>see "i" among numbers in some of the questions
>"this must be a typo"
>proudly raise my hand and loudly ask why the fuck there's the letter "i" in there
>"anon, that's an imaginary number "
>look at the teacher in a quizzical manner
>want to lay down die at the spot

>>36670661
>he thinks complex numbers are irrational, and I'm trying to say that's incorrect and why.
And what i get is you're trying to say complex numbers can't be irrational, which is equally wrong

>>36670729
I'm saying as a whole complex numbers as a whole aren't part of the irrational numbers. I'm bad at expressing what I'm thinking, sorry.
I should kill myself

>>36669384
threads like these serve to remind you just how many posters are in high school

>>36670775
Oh i get it now, indeed, you are correct

Glad we could correct the misunderstanding, cheer up