So when I say "x is an element of the real numbers",

All numbers are imaginary

File: 1480491720715.jpg (71KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 960x540px

>>8513675
THIS ISN'T FUNNY.

>>8513671
>could that mean that x could still be imaginary
Why? Your reasoning isn't at all clear here.

>>8513671
It depends what you mean by imaginary you arent using that word properly here. If by imaginary you mean complex numbers that arent real then by definition no it cant be real and imaginary at the same time, but all real numbers are complex numbers with an "imaginary part" of 0.

>>8513671
No, x wouldn't be defined as imaginary in the normal sense of word. For any number x, a + bi, where a and b are real numbers. Generally, numbers defined as being an element of the reals have b=0. An imaginary number must have b=/= 0. So, x wouldn't be imaginary if it was an element of the reals. But, x would still be an element of the complex numbers, just one of the form a + 0i, i.e., one on the real number line in the imaginary plane.

>>8513671
Zero is an imaginary number.

>>8514157
fair enough

>>8513671
element = 1
subset = could be one number , many numbers or no numbers

>>8513671
[math]x[/math] cannot be an element of real numbers and an element of imaginary numbers as those two sets are disjoint. Also, it would be more correct to say the set containing [math]x[/math] is a subset of the set of real numbers.