Are imaginary numbers real?

>>8775533
they're used in some of the Maxwell's equations, in electricity

as far as I know

>>8775533
Only 0 is

>>8775533

Yes

>>8775533
No numbers are real, they're only real on paper. Just like time, and words. Droppin' mad philosphy bombs, bro

>>8775606
This

>>8775533
Of course it's real
>imaginary
Is a shitty term desu. It's just hard to describe regular things with imaginary numbers.

>>8775533
You have a common deep misunderstanding in math

Define "real".

File: 1476963299631.jpg (38KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x375px

>>8775533
No, but they are complex.
Actually, all numbers that aren't in real group, are in imaginary group, and everything is in complex group.

Now back to what you really meant (i guess):
You can say they (imaginary numbers) aren't achieveable through nature, i.e. the nature doesn't generate anything that is measured in imaginary numbers. It is us, humans, that makes things complex to analyze and infer concepts about it.

For example, we can say every signal can be represented with a sum of sine's and cosine's, but working if it is very difficult, so we use Euler's identity to turn every sine/cosine in complex exponentials.

>>8775810
>>imaginary
a better name would be lateral

https://youtu.be/T647CGsuOVU?t=2m10s

Is any number 'real'? Is mathematics just something invented, like the English language, or is it something that is woven into the fabric of our universe, or something akin to a Platonic form?

File: 1476398224407.jpg (141KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1280x720px

>>8775533
I WANNA FUG DA LOLI

>>8775971
>just explained
>>8775931

>>8775948
We should force the use of the lateral term here on /sci/.

>>8775972
I've been sitting in this thread this whole time waiting for some anon to make such a post
now I can finally close the tab

>>8775996
you made it yourself, fag.

>>8775599

There is a spark-notes-type thing which has some boxes on basic set theory, and which expressly sets out the reals and the imaginaries as the axes of the complexes (thus specifically differentiating the special case of imaginary numbers from complex numbers in general). The first point being that the verbage manages to set up the "two-axes" character of the two sets.

Which leads me to my next point: the same brochure then immediately claims, and in no uncertain terms, that "because these two sets share no elements in common, they are DISJOINT sets." Zero appears to have been totally forgotten. This once triggered me so hard that I actually took a picture of it and posted about it; I'm sure it's still on sale in the same gas stations/etc.