>let >assume >considering I though math was a real science,

>>8957954
If you don't get why we use words like let, assume and considering in math, you clearly don't understand math.

>>8957968
So I can just assume that 2+2=5? Wew lad

>>8958265
Yes, you can do that

>>8958269
>cotemporary mathematics
Worse than alchemy I tell you

>>8957954
What field of science are you studying where these sound arbitrary to you?

>>8957954
>I though math was a real science
Math has never been science. Science uses empirical approach.

>>8958265
>Assume that 2+2=5
>Then 2=3. A contradiction!
>Thus [math] 2 + 2 \neq 5 [/math]
See, nothing wrong with assuming.

>>8958265
you're dumb

>literally making up imaginary numbers because your math doesn't work
This is why math is a pseudo science.

>>8958284
He was working mod 2
>>8957954
9gag tier pic, shit thread

>>8958312
He thinks imaginary numbers are make believe because they're called imaginary numbers for the sake of a 500 year old tradition
Brainlet detected

>>8958316
>imaginary numbers are not imaginary
Okay then, I guess your penis is 10sqrt(-1) inches long then

>>8957954
>Suppose
>Given that
>the following are equivalent [how is this possible if the statements are different??]

>>8958316
>tradition
>science
nice try brianlet

>>8958343
why do we have conventional current then? Because of tradition

>>8958316
>>8958316
>>8958316
>>8958316
this.
because of the name, those "I'm more of a humanities person" idiots will always whine that mathematicians just make stuff up because they're too stupid to understand how math works. it fucking pisses me off, seriously, the name "imaginary numbers" is the worst thing that could happen to mathematics. I bet that if imaginaries were called "orthogonal numbers" nobody would have any problem whatsoever with accepting complex numbers. or at least not a bigger one than with accepting square roots or negative numbers.

>>8958394
>imaginary numbers are bad
>irrational numbers are not
this is science FICTION

>>8958265
>So I can just assume that 2+2=5?
Yes. There is nothing wrong with that.
Your mathematics well then become either inconsistent (aka. worthless) or all numbers will be the same.

>>8958572
can you read?

>>8957954
Fucking retards.

>>8957954
you know that it's literally just a way to express concepts right

also find me a math boy from the last two centuries who's called it a science

>>8957954
lol I love these people

i argue that imaginary numbers dont exist
but what you think are complex numbers are just elements of R^2 with a certain binary operation

>>8958752
then why are they roots of polynomials in R? Nice try bigot.