3 ms·
> Imaginary number is irrational I don't think that's the case. `i` is not irrational, it's just perpendicular to 1.
by core-questions 6y ago
> Imaginary number is irrational
I don't think that's the case. `i` is not irrational, it's just perpendicular to 1.
- esoter 6y agoYes, i is neither rational nor irrational. I just edited to correct/remove that. It’s possible that I cannot define an irrational number as an real number member in a sometimes unknown location within a result set of a function, where the size of the set being exactly one results in the possibility of the number being known exactly. But it has a lot in common with irrational numbers, aside from it looking to meet the qualifications of being irrational. If you assume total omniscience, then the result of the function would always result in a real, rational number, and that is the number I’m trying to define as irrational, because the answer as defined is always an integer, but depending on the values of the parameters to the function, which number it is would be unknown, and that cannot be defined as a fraction.