4 ms·
This article is interesting but not rigorous I think. * The inverse of a geometric shape makes no sense. We only inverse operations. * aa^-1 = 1 only if you c
by skywal_l 5y ago
This article is interesting but not rigorous I think.
* The inverse of a geometric shape makes no sense. We only inverse operations.
* aa^-1 = 1 only if you consider the multiplication over reals.
* 1/0 is not equal to infinity.
Because the article is interesting but some people might be put off by the first few sentences, I suggest to had a disclaimer that this article lean on edutainment to the detriment of rigorous mathematics.
- kzrdude 5y agoIt depends on your definitions and which mathematical objects you are working with. The notions in the blog post are not something the author invented themselves. For example you can find Riemann Sphere in wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sphere
- topaz0 5y agoYour assertions are simply not true in the context of complex analysis. It is common to use "inverse" to refer to the multiplicative inverse as shorthand (though potentially confusing). a a^-1 = 1 is absolutely and uncontroversially applicable to any complex number. It is common and natural to extend to complex plane to include a single point at infinity (known as the extended complex plane, see e.g. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/ExtendedComplexPlane.html https://mathworld.wolfram.com/ExtendedComplexPlane.html ). When you are working in the extended complex plane, 1/0 does equal infinity.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]