A Visual, Intuitive Guide to Imaginary Numbers

Imaginary numbers always confused me. Like understanding e, most explanations fell into one of two categories:

It’s a mathematical abstraction, and the equations work out. Deal with it.
It’s used in advanced physics, trust us. Just wait until college.

Gee, what a great way to encourage math in kids! Today we’ll assault this topic with our favorite tools:

Focusing on relationships, not mechanical formulas.
Seeing complex numbers as an upgrade to our number system, just like zero, decimals and negatives were.
Using visual diagrams, not just text, to understand the idea.

And our secret weapon: learning by analogy. We’ll approach imaginary numbers by observing its ancestor, the negatives. Here’s your guidebook:

imaginary number properties

It doesn’t make sense yet, but hang in there. By the end we’ll hunt down i and put it in a headlock, instead of the reverse.

Really Understanding Negative Numbers

Negative numbers aren’t easy. Imagine you’re a European mathematician in the 1700s. You have 3 and 4, and know you can write 4 - 3 = 1. Simple.

But what about 3-4? What, exactly, does that mean? How can you take 4 cows from 3? How could you have less than nothing?

Negatives were considered absurd, something that “darkened the very whole doctrines of the equations” (Francis Maseres, 1759). Yet today, it’d be absurd to think negatives aren’t logical or useful. Try asking your teacher whether negatives corrupt the very foundations of math.

What happened? We invented a theoretical number that had useful properties. Negatives aren’t something we can touch or hold, but they describe certain relationships well (like debt). It was a useful fiction.

Rather than saying “I owe you 30″ and reading words to see if I’m up or down, I can write “-30″ and know it means I’m in the hole. If I earn money and pay my debts (-30 + 100 = 70), I can record the transaction easily. I have +70 afterwards, which means I’m in the clear.

The positive and negative signs automatically keep track of the direction — you don’t need a sentence to describe the impact of each transaction. Math became easier, more elegant. It didn’t matter if negatives were “tangible” — they had useful properties, and we used them until they became everyday items. Today you’d call someone obscene names if they didn’t “get” negatives.

But let’s not be smug about the struggle: negative numbers were a huge mental shift. Even Euler, the genius who discovered e and much more, didn’t understand negatives as we do today. They were considered “meaningless” results (he later made up for this in style).

It’s a testament to our mental potential that today’s children are expected to understand ideas that once confounded ancient mathematicians.

Enter Imaginary Numbers

Imaginary numbers have a similar story. We can solve equations like this all day long:

$\displaystyle{x^2 = 9}$

The answers are 3 and -3. But suppose some wiseguy puts in a teensy, tiny minus sign:

$\displaystyle{x^2 = -9}$

Uh oh. This question makes most people cringe the first time they see it. You want the square root of a number less than zero? That’s absurd!

It seems crazy, just like negatives, zero, and irrationals (non-repeating numbers) must have seemed crazy at first. There’s no “real” meaning to this question, right?

Wrong. So-called “imaginary numbers” are as normal as every other number (or just as fake): they’re a tool to describe the world. In the same spirit of assuming -1, .3, and 0 “exist”, let’s assume some number i exists where:

$\displaystyle{i^2 = -1}$

That is, you multiply i by itself to get -1. What happens now?

Well, first we get a headache. But playing the “Let’s pretend i exists” game actually makes math easier and more elegant. New relationships emerge that we can describe with ease.

You may not believe in i, just like those fuddy old mathematicians didn’t believe in -1. New, brain-twisting concepts are hard and they don’t make sense immediately, even for Euler. But as the negatives showed us, strange concepts can still be useful.

I dislike the term “imaginary number” — it was considered an insult, a slur, designed to hurt i’s feelings. The number i is just as normal as other numbers, but the name “imaginary” stuck so we’ll use it.

Visual Understanding of Negative and Complex Numbers

As we saw last time, the equation x^2 = 9 really means:

$\displaystyle{1 \cdot x^2 = 9}$

What transformation x, when applied twice, turns 1 to 9?

The two answers are “x = 3″ and “x = -3″: That is, you can “scale by” 3 or “scale by 3 and flip” (flipping or taking the opposite is one interpretation of multiplying by a negative).

Now let’s think about x^2 = -1, which is really

$\displaystyle{1 \cdot x^2 = -1}$

What transformation x, when applied twice, turns 1 into -1? Hrm.

We can’t multiply by a positive twice, because the result stays positive
We can’t multiply by a negative twice, because the result will flip back to positive on the second multiplication

But what about… a rotation! It sounds crazy, but if we imagine x being a “rotation of 90 degrees”, then applying x twice will be a 180 degree rotation, or a flip from 1 to -1!

Imaginary Number Rotation

Yowza! And if we think about it more, we could rotate twice in the other direction (clockwise) to turn 1 into -1. This is “negative” rotation or a multiplication by -i:

Negative Rotation

If we multiply by -i twice, we turn 1 into -i, and -i into -1. So there’s really two square roots of -1: i and -i.

This is pretty cool. We have some sort of answer, but what does it mean?

i is a “new imaginary dimension” to measure a number
i (or -i) is what numbers “become” when rotated
Multiplying i is a rotation by 90 degrees counter-clockwise
Multiplying by -i is a rotation of 90 degrees clockwise
Two rotations in either direction is -1: it brings us back into the “regular” dimensions of positive and negative numbers.

Numbers are 2-dimensional. Yes, it’s mind bending, just like decimals or long division would be mind-bending to an ancient Roman. (What do you mean there’s a number between 1 and 2?). It’s a strange, new way to think about math.

We asked “How do we turn 1 into -1 in two steps?” and found an answer: rotate it 90 degrees. It’s a strange, new way to think about math. But it’s useful. (By the way, this geometric interpretation of complex numbers didn’t arrive until decades after i was discovered).

Also, keep in mind that having counter-clockwise be positive is a human convention — it easily could have been the other way.

Finding Patterns

Let’s dive into the details a bit. When multiplying negative numbers (like -1), you get a pattern:

1, -1, 1, -1, 1, -1, 1, -1

Since -1 doesn’t change the size of a number, just the sign, you flip back and forth. For some number “x”, you’d get:

x, -x, x, -x, x, -x…

This idea is useful. The number “x” can represent a good or bad hair week. Suppose weeks alternate between good and bad; this is a good week; what will it be like in 47 weeks?

$\displaystyle{x \cdot -1^{47} = x \cdot -1 = -x}$

So -x means a bad hair week. Notice how negative numbers “keep track of the sign” — we can throw -1^47 into a calculator without having to count (”Week 1 is good, week 2 is bad… week 3 is good…“). Things that flip back and forth can be modeled well with negative numbers.

Ok. Now what happens if we keep multiplying by i?

$\displaystyle{1, i, i^2, i^3, i^4, i^5...}$

Very funny. Let’s reduce this a bit:

$\displaystyle{1 = 1}$ (No questions here)
$\displaystyle{i = i}$ (Can’t do much)
$\displaystyle{i^2 = -1}$ (That’s what i is all about)
$\displaystyle{i^3 = (i \cdot i) \cdot i = -1 \cdot i = -i}$ (Ah, 3 rotations counter-clockwise = 1 rotation clockwise. Neat.)
$\displaystyle{i^4 = (i \cdot i) \cdot (i \cdot i) = -1 \cdot -1 = 1}$ (4 rotations bring us “full circle”)
$\displaystyle{i^5 = i^4 \cdot i = 1 \cdot i = i}$ (Here we go again…)

Represented visually:

imaginary number cycle

We cycle every 4th rotation. This makes sense, right? Any kid can tell you that 4 left turns is the same as no turns at all. Now rather than focusing on imaginary numbers (i, i^2), look at the general pattern:

X, Y, -X, -Y, X, Y, -X, -Y…

Like negative numbers modeling flipping, imaginary numbers can model anything that rotates between two dimensions “X” and “Y”. Or anything with a cyclic, circular relationship — have anything in mind?

‘Cos it’d be a sin if you didn’t. There’ll ~~de Moivre~~ be more in future articles. [Editor’s note: Kalid is in electroshock therapy to treat his pun addiction.]

Understanding Complex Numbers

There’s another detail to cover: can a number be both “real” and “imaginary”?

You bet. Who says we have to rotate the entire 90 degrees? If we keep 1 foot in the “real” dimension and another in the imaginary one, it looks like this:

imaginary number i plus i

We’re at a 45 degree angle, with equal parts in the real and imaginary (1 + i). It’s like a hotdog with both mustard and ketchup — who says you need to choose?

In fact, we can pick any combination of real and imaginary numbers and make a triangle. The angle becomes the “angle of rotation”. A complex number is the fancy name for numbers with both real and imaginary parts. They’re written a + bi, where

a is the real part
b is the imaginary part

imaginary number a plus bi

Not too bad. But there’s one last question: how “big” is a complex number? We can’t measure the real part or imaginary parts in isolation, because that would miss the big picture.

Let’s step back. The size of a negative number is not whether you can count it — it’s the distance from zero. In the case of negatives this is:

$\displaystyle{Size \hspace{2pt} of \hspace{2pt} (-x) = \sqrt{(-x)^2} = |x|}$

Which is another way to find the absolute value. But for complex numbers, how do we measure two components at 90 degree angles?

It’s a bird… it’s a plane… it’s Pythagoras!

Geez, his theorem shows up everywhere, even in numbers invented 2000 years after his time. Yes, we are making a triangle of sorts, and the hypotenuse is the distance from zero:

$\displaystyle{Size \hspace{2pt} of \hspace{2pt} a + bi = \sqrt{a^2 + b^2}}$

Neat. While measuring the size isn’t as easy as “dropping the negative sign”, complex numbers do have their uses. Let’s take a look.

A Real Example: Rotations

We’re not going to wait until college physics to use imaginary numbers. Let’s try them out today. There’s much more to say about complex multiplication, but keep this in mind:

Multiplying by a complex number rotates by its angle

Let’s take a look. Suppose I’m on a boat, with a heading of 3 units East for every 4 units North. I want to change my heading 45 degrees counter-clockwise. What’s the new heading?

imaginary number example

Some hotshot will say “That’s simple! Just take the sine, cosine, gobbledegook by the tangent… fluxsom the foobar… and…“. Crack. Sorry, did I break your calculator? Care to answer that question again?

Let’s try a simpler approach: we’re on a heading of 3 + 4i (whatever that angle is; we don’t really care), and want to rotate by 45 degrees. Well, 45 degrees is 1 + i, so we can multiply by that amount!

imaginary number example

Here’s the idea:

Original heading: 3 units East, 4 units North = 3 + 4i
Rotate counter-clockwise by 45 degrees = multiply by 1 + i

If we multiply them together we get:

$\displaystyle{(3 + 4i) \cdot (1 + i) = 3 + 4i + 3i + 4i^2 = 3 - 4 + 7i = -1 + 7i}$

So our new orientation is 1 unit West (-1 East), and 7 units North, which you could draw out and follow.

But yowza! We found that out in 10 seconds, without touching sine or cosine. There were no vectors, matrices, or keeping track what quadrant we are in. It was just arithmetic with a touch of algebra to cross-multiply. Imaginary numbers have the rotation rules baked in: it just works.

Even better, the result is useful. We have a heading (-1, 7) instead of an angle (atan(7/-1) = 98.13, keeping in mind we’re in quadrant 2). How, exactly, were you planning on drawing and following that angle? With the protractor you keep around?

No, you’d convert it into cosine and sine (-.14 and .99), find a reasonable ratio between them (about 1 to 7), and sketch out the triangle. Complex numbers beat you to it, instantly, accurately, and without a calculator.

If you’re like me, you’ll find this use mind-blowing. And if you don’t, well, I’m afraid math doesn’t toot your horn. Sorry.

Trigonometry is great, but complex numbers can make ugly calculations simple (like calculating cosine(a+b) ). This is just a preview; later articles will give you the full meal.

Complex Numbers Aren’t

That was a whirlwind tour of my basic insights. Take a look at the first chart — it should make sense now.

There’s so much more to these beautiful, zany numbers, but my brain is tired. My goals were simple:

Convince you that complex numbers were considered “crazy” but can be useful (just like negative numbers were)
Show how complex numbers can make certain problems easier, like rotations

If I seem hot and bothered about this topic, there’s a reason. Imaginary numbers have been a bee in my bonnet for years — the lack of an intuitive insight frustrated me.

Now that I’ve finally had insights, I’m bursting to share them. But it frustrates me that you’re reading this on the blog of a wild-eyed lunatic, and not in a classroom. We suffocate our questions and “chug through” — because we don’t search for and share clean, intuitive insights. Egad.

But better to light a candle than curse the darkness: here’s my thoughts, and one of you will shine a spotlight. Thinking we’ve “figured out” a topic like numbers is what keeps us in Roman Numeral land.

There’s much more complex numbers: check out the details of complex arithmetic. Happy math.

Epilogue: But they’re still strange!

I know, they’re still strange to me too. I try to put myself in the mind of the first person to discover zero.

Zero is such a weird idea, having “something” represent “nothing”, and it eluded the Romans. Complex numbers are similar — it’s a new way of thinking. But both zero and complex numbers make math much easier. If we never adopted strange, new number systems, we’d still be counting on our fingers.

I repeat this analogy because it’s so easy to start thinking that complex numbers aren’t “normal”. Let’s keep our mind open: in the future they’ll chuckle that complex numbers were once distrusted, even until the 2000’s.

If you want more nitty-gritty, check out wikipedia, the Dr. Math discussion, or another argument on why imaginary numbers exist.

Posted December 21, 2007, under Guides, Math
Tags: analogy, complex, Guides, imaginary, intuitive, Math, negative, number
Related Posts:

Explanations for everyone.

Intuitive Arithmetic With Complex Numbers

How to Develop a Mindset for Math

Rethinking Arithmetic: A Visual Guide

How To Understand Combinations Using Multiplication

Like it? Share on:

RSS or Email Subscription |

Printable Version

Tools of the trade:

Don't Make Me Think
(Web Design)

On Writing Well
(Writing Style)

MS Office 2007
(Charts & Diagrams)

53 Comments »

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

Pingback by Rethinking Arithmetic: A Visual Guide | BetterExplained — December 21, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
Pingback by links for 2007-12-24 « Simply… A User — December 23, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
Pingback by A Thread About Whatever - The Daily Punt betting forum — December 25, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
Pingback by How to Develop a Mindset for Math | BetterExplained — January 2, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
Pingback by Intuitive Arithmetic With Complex Numbers | BetterExplained — January 2, 2008 @ 10:37 pm
Pingback by نظرات دو ستونه و وبلاگ ریاضی — January 5, 2008 @ 10:47 am
Pingback by Mindset :: How to Develop a Mindset for Math :: February :: 2008 — February 5, 2008 @ 3:09 am
Pingback by How To Analyze Data Using the Average | BetterExplained — March 14, 2008 @ 10:46 am

Comments

I enjoy reading your intuitive approach to math and hadn’t really considered “i” normal until recently. (My favorite math formula contains all sorts of “non-existent” numbers — e^(pi*i)=-1.)

Anyway, need to point out a simple error in your article. (-1)^48 is 1, not -1. It’s a small issue, but didn’t want others to be confused.

Happy Holidays,
. John

John Kelly — December 21, 2007 @ 9:16 am
I must thank you for this wonderful site. It has opened up my eyes to many things that I knew how to use, but never truly understood. This article in particular made me say, “HOLY CRAP! That’s freaking awesome!” Thank you very much for your work, and please keep it up.

JB McMichael — December 21, 2007 @ 9:30 am
It was a real breakthrough when I came to visualize that model for the first time. I really don’t understand why they don’t teach imaginaries that way!

Bryan Davis — December 21, 2007 @ 9:32 am
Nice article, but I always found the “best” way to understand math is by its history, especially how mathematical idea came into being. No one actually wanted to solve

x^2 = -9

, nor want to “take the square root of nothing”. But in the 1500s, Bombelli wanted to use one of Cardano’s formula to solve

x^3 = 15x + 4

, and get

x = cuberoot(2 + sqrt(-121)) + cuberoot(2 – sqrt(–121))

After figuring that
cuberoot(2 + sqrt(–121)) = 2 + sqrt(–1)
cuberoot(2 - sqrt(–121)) = 2 - sqrt(–1)
, he found the real solution
x = 4
The idea was that this number sqrt(-1) was actually useful!
And yeah, everyone should also see the (simple) proof of Euler’s formula. It is Euler’s formula that links trigonometry to arithmetic (and allows for a geometric interpretation of complex numbers as a result).

Chick — December 21, 2007 @ 10:46 am
@John: Thanks for the catch, I just fixed it. I’m a big fan of the e^i*pi = -1 formula as well.

@JB: Thanks! Yes, I had a similar “wow” moment and just wanted to share it. There are so many things we think we “know” (because we learned them a decade ago), but never bother to revisit with a fresh set of eyes. I’ll keep the articles coming.

@Bryan: I agree — I needed to see the diagram before it clicked. I don’t know why it’s not taught visually either — it makes students think imaginaries are entirely made up and unintuitive.

@Chick: Thanks for the background info! I had to plug in the numbers myself to see myself:

(2 + i)^3 = 2 + 11i = 2 + sqrt(-121)

There’s more details here as well:

http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/events/summer_schools/summer_school2001/Alg013.html

Kalid — December 21, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
Actually, your rotation calculation is wrong, depends on what you really mean by “heading”. If you only want to rotate by 45 and not to scale, you have to multiply by a complex value with length 1. 1+i has length sqrt(2) so the final answer is thus -1/sqrt(2)+7i/sqrt(2).

Chick — December 21, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
Yeah, I wanted to leave out the discussion of scaling until the next article. The meaning of heading was just the “angle”, so the scale shouldn’t matter in this case. Also, a triangle of sides 1/sqrt(2) + 7i/sqrt(2) is hard to draw

Kalid — December 21, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
I really like how you explicitly relate rotation to complex numbers. It really does feel like a whole new angle (heh) to START with rotation.

I have occasionally pointed people towards http://mathforum.org/johnandbetty/ which is good for the early stages of complex numbers.

Chaz — December 21, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
Thanks Chaz! Yeah, if negatives are “mirror images”, then complex numbers are “rotations”. I wish I had been taught that analogy first, instead of some arcane symbols which *later* get shown to have a geometric interpretation. We’re visual creatures!

Thanks for the link, I’ll have to check it out.

Kalid — December 21, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
A very nice explanation, I’ve never thought of it that way before. So how would you describe an x,y plot where both x and y are complex? (I’m not trying to be a smart a, I’m sincerely curious). Or maybe the question should be if you add rotation to an x,y co-ordinates you then get something else (quaternions?).

Dave

Dave — December 21, 2007 @ 5:19 pm
I see you’ve read
Where Mathematics Comes From by George Lakoff and Rafael Nunez.

Everything said here and more, except errors, is in that book!8-))

Your pages are good publicity for these ideas. But you need to post more about analogy.

G. Lakoff — December 21, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
@Dave: a pair (z,s) of two complex numbers would “live” in 4 dimensional space. They are not quaternion, however, although both are 4 dimensional. Quaternion have three imaginary axes i,j, and k; with non-commutative multiplication. But they are actually used in your favorite FPS games: Halo, Doom, etc., in, 3D rotation. Surprise!

And then here’s the octonions with seven imaginary axes and non-associative multiplication…

Chick — December 21, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
George,

I loved your book but you never answered the question posed by the title.

As far as analogies are concerned, thinking about imaginary numbers as rotation is a good start but I think periodicity goes deeper. Your book kind of touched on that in the e^i*pi = -1 section.

bayareaguy — December 22, 2007 @ 12:22 am
@George: Actually, I haven’t read that book — all analogies and mistakes came from my brain . I’m a fan of using analogies to understand difficult topics, and they’ll continue appearing in my articles.

@Chick: Thanks for the details, I’m not familiar with quaternion but am looking forward to learning.

@bayareaguy: Yep, the rotation analogies go much deeper with Euler’s formula. But all that would be too much for one sitting . It’ll be in a future article.

Kalid — December 22, 2007 @ 2:00 am
hi,
suppose x^2=a
then x can have two values sqrt(a) or - sqrt(a)
will this same rule not apply to imaginary no.s??

ie. i^2 can be equal to + or - 1

i= sqrt(-1)

i^2 = sqrt(-1)* sqrt(-1)
= sqrt( -1 * -1 )
= sqrt(1)
= 1

abc — December 23, 2007 @ 8:13 am
I never had imaginary numbers in school, but I think I can deal with them now, thanks to your explanation .

By the way, there’s a word missing here:

what confounded ancient mathematicians DIDN’T.

Robin — December 23, 2007 @ 9:53 am
@abc: Actually, it’s the other way around: if you have x^2 = a, then sqrt(a) is either +x or -x. For example, sqrt(9) is either +3 or -3.

So, there are 2 values of sqrt(-1): +i and -i. There’s only one value of i^2, which is -1. (Just like there is only one value of -3^2, which is -9).

@Robin: Thanks, glad you found it useful! Yes, imaginary numbers are weird at first but I’m getting a handle on them also. Btw, I also fixed up the sentence to be more clear.

Kalid — December 23, 2007 @ 10:27 am
@Kalid: Sorry, the sentence was right. I just didn’t know the verb “to confound”, so I thought “confounded” was an adjective meaning something like “wise” .

Robin — December 23, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
I prefer seeing Euler’s equation as

e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0

because then it brings together FIVE (5) really special numbers in one equation.

Good post. I learned about i as a rotational operator, and I’m surprised that it isn’t taught that way (in addition to “follow the math” ways).

Burton MacKenZie — December 24, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
Thanks Burton, glad you liked it. I like that representation of Euler’s formula also — I’m gearing up to cover it in an upcoming post (first we need a bit more on e and imaginary numbers ).

I too am shocked that the “rotation” analogy wasn’t shown when I originally learned about i (in high school). For a long time I thought “i” was just an artificial abstraction used to fill in a gap in our number system (”Well, we need *something* to be the square root of -1, so let’s just stick i in there.”).

Kalid — December 25, 2007 @ 1:43 am
This is a nice presentation — thanks for creating it!

I’ve successfully used this analogy to explain complex numbers to my children, and a few other elementary schoolers. I’m not sure where I first saw the seeds of it, but I recommend Hestenes’ Oersted lecture on geometric algebra for how to extend this idea and where to find lots more like this.

One thing that comes up is that a sensible answer to “What transformation x, when applied twice, turns 1 into -1?” is to subtract one. If you point out that this doesn’t work on 2, the child may reply that the answer is to subtract x, whatever it is, twice. I’ve had to clarify at this point that a transformation can only look at its input, which is a single number. The problem with “subtract again” is that it doesn’t know whether the zero that it gets after one transformation came from 1 or from 2, and it’s not allowed to remember where it started from. The problem is to find an instruction that two different people could do (in series), without sharing any information except for the intermediate number.

It’s also helpful, when explaining this in person and giving the student a chance to come up with the answer, to rotate a pencil *out* of (perpendicular to) the page or to rotate your arm out of the blackboard, and then back into the plane in the negative direction. This doesn’t give the answer away as much as showing a rotation within the plane, but it’s a nice intermediate clue that “primes the pump” for the explicit explanation, and also adds a somatic modality.

Oliver Steele — December 27, 2007 @ 6:47 am
Mind blown here, genius way to describe imaginary numbers visually and to actually use it in real life situation without using fancy methods like sine and cosine. Thanks

Darius — December 28, 2007 @ 1:55 am
@Oliver: Thanks for the insightful comment! I really like that way of looking at it: you need to do *something* twice, and you can’t tell different types of “zero” apart (1-1 or 2-2). Giving hints like rotating the pencil out of the paper is a nice trick as well. I think kids would be able to pick up on these ideas (better than adults even!) and it’s cool you are introducing it to your children.

@Darius: You’re welcome, I’m glad you found it useful. There are “everyday” uses of imaginary numbers, but nobody seems to talk about them!

Kalid — December 28, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
Well, just an idea to discuss on: now we could think about a+bi+cj numbers Or we could think about four-dimension numbers too: a+bi+cj+dk
And so on…

Alessio — December 30, 2007 @ 4:13 am
Well Done! I share share your frustration at the fact that most high school mathematics courses do not explain complex numbers adequately.

Ivan Malison — December 30, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
@Alessio: Thanks for the suggestion. Yes, I want to learn more about quaternions, imaginary numbers extended to more dimensions .

@Ivan: Thanks, glad you liked the article.

Kalid — January 2, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
I’m glad to hear you’ll be covering Euler’s equation again in an upcoming post (I haven’t checked back until now). On the same topic, I thought you might want to check out some installation art i did on the topic a couple of years ago.
Cheers,
Burton

Burton MacKenZie — January 8, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
Hi Burton, thanks for dropping by — I like the message on that art . Yeah, I want to cover Euler’s equation, but would like to lay a bit of groundwork (more about e & pi) to help it really sink in.

Also, I like what you said about math being a language that is self-describing to some extent; you can communicate with others *and* discover new ideas by using it.

Kalid — January 9, 2008 @ 2:26 am
Hi Kalid,

Yes, I agree with the others: nice job on this page!

One comment just for fun: Did you know that engineers (at least electrical engineers) use “j” instead of “i” to denote sqrt(-1)? We need to reserve “i” for electrical current (very important!). BTW, electrical engineering makes very *heavy* use of complex math. So “our” version of Euler’s equation is e^(j*pi)+1=0. It’s only a difference in the use of a symbol, but I think it’s a rather interesting “cultural” difference to know about.

Peace,
Peyton

Peyton Bland — February 6, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
Thanks Peyton, glad you liked it! Yes, those “cultural differences” (I like that phrase) are quite interesting. Another way to set off a cultural war is to ask what base “log” refers to (e, 10, or 2).

Kalid — February 6, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
Hello,

How can we understand e^(pi * i) = -1 ?

Osama AbuObeid — February 10, 2008 @ 2:35 am
Nice post. As a future maths teacher I found it very interesting.

One minor point, though. When you say “complex numbers aren’t”, it’s not technically true. Complex refers to something made from more than one part (in this case the real and imaginary parts)Think of a complex of buildings.What you mean is that they aren’t complicated.

Alessio: It may interest you to know that the 3 dimensional system you suggest, a+bi+cj, has been proven not to work. The 4 dimensional system, a+bi+cj+dk, only works if you remove the insistence on associativity,ie in the quaternions a*b=b*a doesn’t hold in the general case.

Jaloopa — February 11, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
@Osama: Great question, I’ll be covering that in a separate post.

@Jaloopa: Thanks for the info! Yep, I agree on ‘complex vs complicated’ (http://betterexplained.com/articles/combining-simplicity-and-complexity/)… but the pun may not flow as well when we write “complex numbers aren’t complicated” .

Kalid — February 11, 2008 @ 11:36 pm
Great explanation. Byt it begs the next question.

Negative numbers complete the “real” numbers in a one-dimensional number line. Imaginary nu,mbers open that out into a two dimensional complex number space. So what is in the three, four and higher dimesnional number spaces?

Alec — March 26, 2008 @ 3:16 am
Hi Alec, great question. There are ways to consider i, j and k to handle more degrees of rotation (called quaternions, I don’t have much experience with them). At this point, it’s probably easier to use linear algebra (matrices) to keep track of multi-dimensional data. Any set of x, y and z coordinates can be represented in a matrix, and other matrices can represent transformations like rotation and scaling.

Kalid — March 26, 2008 @ 8:53 am
But why were imaginary numbers first used? I understand they have many uses today, but what were they used for in 1572 when they were first discovered?

Jane Messina — April 14, 2008 @ 4:58 am
Hi Jane, take a look at comments #4 and #5, they may help answer your question .

Kalid — April 14, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
Actually, what makes to think of an imaginary axis. Where can be this imaginary number stuff be applied?

I’m not getting the right image on how you were looking at the number.

maheshexp — April 18, 2008 @ 4:10 am
@maheshexp: Take a look at the example in the article — imaginary numbers help deal with rotations, without having to use trigonometry.

In general, imaginary numbers are good for things that move in cycles (since i can be seen as rotations about a center point). In Physics and Electrical Engineering, imaginary numbers are used to describe electric current and other things that can have cyclical patterns. It can often make the math much easier.

Kalid — April 18, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
I feel smarter now.

Kenneth Rochester — April 28, 2008 @ 10:04 pm
Awesome, glad you found it useful .

Kalid — April 28, 2008 @ 10:18 pm
Khalid, now I could make a pretty difference between ‘Complex Number’ & Trigs.

Trig -> Given your position or distance (eg: 4N,3E), what angle should you move from the current point.

Complex Number -> Given an angle, solves what would be the new position

maheshexp — April 29, 2008 @ 5:00 am
Hi maheshexp, that’s an interesting observation. Yes, trig mostly deals with the raw angles, while complex numbers have you think about distances.

Kalid — April 29, 2008 @ 10:39 am
i never understood math in school (geometry being the exception). but just recently it clicked, and now i think math is beautiful. i spend more time reading these sorts of pages than on actual schoolwork, and i don’t even have any math classes this semester!

caitie — May 3, 2008 @ 9:15 pm
Thanks, Kalid (is that “Khalid”?) for making maths so easy. I’m 38, very interested in Science, Tech, Electronics, Computers et al but maths has always been my “Achilles’ heel”. I had an almost-aha moment when I was studying remedial maths at the South Tyneside College back in ‘93. That was calculus.

Sorry for intruding between all the other ‘Math’ (why not Maths?) wiz kids(?) - I’m still just learnin

Neeraj — May 17, 2008 @ 4:06 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Have a question? Know an explanation that caused your own a-ha moment? Write about it here.