2 ms·
> They're the same, but the latter is more complex (hah!) for no real (haha!) benefit. When you consider problems in real geometry, this is plausible. But on
by aleph_minus_one 3y ago
>
They're the same, but the latter is more complex (hah!) for no real (haha!) benefit.
When you consider problems in real geometry, this is plausible. But on the other hand, not all mathematics is real geometry. For some applications in mathematics, the complex-geometric perspective is more natural.
P.S. Of course p-adic (and in particular 2-adic) geometry is even cooler than anything real or complex ... ;-)
- jiggawatts 3y agoIt's type confusion caused by duck-typing. Just because can you can add, subtract, multiply, and divide complex numbers doesn't mean they're a natural substitute for real numbers in all scenarios. Sometimes you have '2n' real numbers, not 'n' complex numbers. If mathematicians designed computer software, their data structures would look like: struct Person { char name; complex name_height; }
- eigenspace 3y ago> It's type confusion caused by duck-typing No it's not. This is such a typical and braindead HN take.
- aleph_minus_one 3y ago> doesn't mean they're a natural substitute for real numbers in all scenarios. I claimed the exact opposite: whether real or complex numbers as basic objects are more natural depends on the problem that you consider.