by i you have a formula that has no solution...
Stop moving your i around
The complex plane is just the extension
of the imaginary math.... the best
man can do is pretend that what has no solution
does... and of course there is no negative i either.

Mitchell Raemsch

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> by i you have a formula that has no solution... Stop moving your i
> around The complex plane is just the extension of the imaginary math....
> the best man can do is pretend that what has no solution does... and of
> course there is no negative i either.

not true, Science sees human as weeds, and food poisons are weed killers
for depopulation

On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 2:04:52 PM UTC-7, Tadd Muraro wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > by i you have a formula that has no solution... Stop moving your i
> > around The complex plane is just the extension of the imaginary math....
> > the best man can do is pretend that what has no solution does... and of
> > course there is no negative i either.
> not true, Science sees human as weeds, and food poisons are weed killers
> for depopulation

Math got its name right. i formula has no solution.
There are no negatives so imaginary math isn't real.
Negatives are subtraction operations... at zero there
is no more quantity to subtract from.

Mitchell Raemsch

måndag 15 augusti 2022 kl. 23:03:20 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
> by i you have a formula that has no solution...
> Stop moving your i around
> The complex plane is just the extension
> of the imaginary math.... the best
> man can do is pretend that what has no solution
> does... and of course there is no negative i either.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

x^2+1=0 has a solution, namely i :) and -i

Le 16/08/2022 à 09:38, "zelos...@gmail.com" a écrit :
> måndag 15 augusti 2022 kl. 23:03:20 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
>> by i you have a formula that has no solution...
>> Stop moving your i around
>> The complex plane is just the extension
>> of the imaginary math.... the best
>> man can do is pretend that what has no solution
>> does... and of course there is no negative i either.
>>
>> Mitchell Raemsch
>
> x^2+1=0 has a solution, namely i :) and -i

When I draw the curve y=x²+1, I realize that this curve is a parabola.

I realize that it does not go lower than A=(0,1).

However, it seems that according to what it seems, there is still a
solution which crosses the x axis and which gives y=0.

This is the point (i,0).

But where do I put this point?

R.H.

On 8/17/2022 12:12 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 16/08/2022 à 09:38, "zelos...@gmail.com" a écrit :
>> måndag 15 augusti 2022 kl. 23:03:20 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
>>> by i you have a formula that has no solution... Stop moving your i
>>> around The complex plane is just the extension of the imaginary
>>> math.... the best man can do is pretend that what has no solution
>>> does... and of course there is no negative i either.
>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>
>> x^2+1=0 has a solution, namely i :) and -i
>
> When I draw the curve y=x²+1, I realize that this curve is a parabola.
>
> I realize that it does not go lower than A=(0,1).
>
> However, it seems that according to what it seems, there is still a
> solution which crosses the x axis and which gives y=0.
>
> This is the point (i,0).
>
> But where do I put this point?

Are you asking where to plot the point (1i+0)?

On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 12:12:14 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 16/08/2022 à 09:38, "zelos...@gmail.com" a écrit :
> > måndag 15 augusti 2022 kl. 23:03:20 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
> >> by i you have a formula that has no solution...
> >> Stop moving your i around
> >> The complex plane is just the extension
> >> of the imaginary math.... the best
> >> man can do is pretend that what has no solution
> >> does... and of course there is no negative i either.
> >>
> >> Mitchell Raemsch
> >
> > x^2+1=0 has a solution, namely i :) and -i
> When I draw the curve y=x²+1, I realize that this curve is a parabola.
>
> I realize that it does not go lower than A=(0,1).
>
> However, it seems that according to what it seems, there is still a
> solution which crosses the x axis and which gives y=0.
>
> This is the point (i,0).
>
> But where do I put this point?
>
> R.H.

Zero is the no quantity first point... then there is a nonzero second.
The quantity line is only to the right. Right is right.

Le 17/08/2022 à 21:25, "Chris M. Thomasson" a écrit :
> On 8/17/2022 12:12 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 16/08/2022 à 09:38, "zelos...@gmail.com" a écrit :
>>> måndag 15 augusti 2022 kl. 23:03:20 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
>>>> by i you have a formula that has no solution... Stop moving your i
>>>> around The complex plane is just the extension of the imaginary
>>>> math.... the best man can do is pretend that what has no solution
>>>> does... and of course there is no negative i either.
>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>
>>> x^2+1=0 has a solution, namely i :) and -i
>>
>> When I draw the curve y=x²+1, I realize that this curve is a parabola.
>>
>> I realize that it does not go lower than A=(0,1).
>>
>> However, it seems that according to what it seems, there is still a
>> solution which crosses the x axis and which gives y=0.
>>
>> This is the point (i,0).
>>
>> But where do I put this point?
>
> Are you asking where to plot the point (1i+0)?

Yes.

Good deduction.

That's exactly what I'm asking.

But don't make it too loud.

I don't want any trouble.

R.H.

On 8/17/2022 12:39 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 17/08/2022 à 21:25, "Chris M. Thomasson" a écrit :
>> On 8/17/2022 12:12 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> Le 16/08/2022 à 09:38, "zelos...@gmail.com" a écrit :
>>>> måndag 15 augusti 2022 kl. 23:03:20 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
>>>>> by i you have a formula that has no solution... Stop moving your i
>>>>> around The complex plane is just the extension of the imaginary
>>>>> math.... the best man can do is pretend that what has no solution
>>>>> does... and of course there is no negative i either.
>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>>
>>>> x^2+1=0 has a solution, namely i :) and -i
>>>
>>> When I draw the curve y=x²+1, I realize that this curve is a parabola.
>>>
>>> I realize that it does not go lower than A=(0,1).
>>>
>>> However, it seems that according to what it seems, there is still a
>>> solution which crosses the x axis and which gives y=0.
>>>
>>> This is the point (i,0).
>>>
>>> But where do I put this point?
>>
>> Are you asking where to plot the point (1i+0)?
>
> Yes.
>
> Good deduction.
>
> That's exactly what I'm asking.
>
> But don't make it too loud.
>
> I don't want any trouble.

[...]

ct_complex I = { 0, 1 };
ct_complex c0 = { 1, 0 };
ct_complex c1 = c0.real() * I;

scene.circle({ c1.real(), c1.imag()}, .01f, CT_RGBF(1, 1, 1));

Point i, at point (0, 1)

On 8/17/2022 12:49 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 8/17/2022 12:39 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 17/08/2022 à 21:25, "Chris M. Thomasson" a écrit :
>>> On 8/17/2022 12:12 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>> Le 16/08/2022 à 09:38, "zelos...@gmail.com" a écrit :
>>>>> måndag 15 augusti 2022 kl. 23:03:20 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
>>>>>> by i you have a formula that has no solution... Stop moving your i
>>>>>> around The complex plane is just the extension of the imaginary
>>>>>> math.... the best man can do is pretend that what has no solution
>>>>>> does... and of course there is no negative i either.
>>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>>>
>>>>> x^2+1=0 has a solution, namely i :) and -i
>>>>
>>>> When I draw the curve y=x²+1, I realize that this curve is a parabola.
>>>>
>>>> I realize that it does not go lower than A=(0,1).
>>>>
>>>> However, it seems that according to what it seems, there is still a
>>>> solution which crosses the x axis and which gives y=0.
>>>>
>>>> This is the point (i,0).
>>>>
>>>> But where do I put this point?
>>>
>>> Are you asking where to plot the point (1i+0)?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Good deduction.
>>
>> That's exactly what I'm asking.
>>
>> But don't make it too loud.
>>
>> I don't want any trouble.
>
> [...]
>
> ct_complex I = { 0, 1 };
> ct_complex c0 = { 1, 0 };
> ct_complex c1 = c0.real() * I;

c1 can also be:

ct_complex c1 = c0 * I;

plot a point at (0, 1) wrt the unit circle centered at origin (0, 0),
with a radius of one. This is the result.

>
> scene.circle({ c1.real(), c1.imag()}, .01f, CT_RGBF(1, 1, 1));
>
> Point i, at point (0, 1)

On 8/15/2022 4:03 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> by i you have a formula that has no solution...
> Stop moving your i around
> The complex plane is just the extension
> of the imaginary math.... the best
> man can do is pretend that what has no solution
> does... and of course there is no negative i either.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

i * (Mitchell Raemsch) = 0 ?

On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 1:20:37 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> On 8/15/2022 4:03 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > by i you have a formula that has no solution...
> > Stop moving your i around
> > The complex plane is just the extension
> > of the imaginary math.... the best
> > man can do is pretend that what has no solution
> > does... and of course there is no negative i either.
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> i * (Mitchell Raemsch) = 0 ?

If you have no quantity or absolute zero there
is no more quantity below that... you morons..

On 8/17/2022 1:20 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 8/15/2022 4:03 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> by i you have a formula that has no solution...
>> Stop moving your i around
>> The complex plane is just the extension
>> of the imaginary math.... the best
>> man can do is pretend that what has no solution
>> does... and of course there is no negative i either.
>>
>> Mitchell Raemsch
>
>
>  i * (Mitchell Raemsch) = 0    ?

Less than zero? Oh wait, he does not believe in that. So, zero is okay. ;^)

Chris M. Thomasson presented the following explanation :
> On 8/17/2022 1:20 PM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 8/15/2022 4:03 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> by i you have a formula that has no solution...
>>> Stop moving your i around
>>> The complex plane is just the extension
>>> of the imaginary math.... the best
>>> man can do is pretend that what has no solution
>>> does... and of course there is no negative i either.
>>>
>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>
>>
>>  i * (Mitchell Raemsch) = 0    ?
>
> Less than zero? Oh wait, he does not believe in that. So, zero is okay. ;^)

Multiplying by i is a pure phase operation, the magnitude is invariant.
Mitchell Raemsch will be *on* the unit circle not at its origin. :)

Of course, he will only see the one dimensional non-negative extended
hyperreals.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> Le 16/08/2022 à 09:38, "zelos...@gmail.com" a écrit :
>> måndag 15 augusti 2022 kl. 23:03:20 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
>>> by i you have a formula that has no solution... Stop moving your i
>>> around The complex plane is just the extension of the imaginary
>>> math.... the best man can do is pretend that what has no solution
>>> does... and of course there is no negative i either.
>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>
>> x^2+1=0 has a solution, namely i :) and -i
>
> When I draw the curve y=x²+1, I realize that this curve is a parabola.
>
> I realize that it does not go lower than A=(0,1).
>
> However, it seems that according to what it seems, there is still a
> solution which crosses the x axis and which gives y=0.
>
> This is the point (i,0).
>
> But where do I put this point?

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1688271/graphing-x21-over-the-complex-plane

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

>> > the best man can do is pretend that what has no solution does... and
>> > of course there is no negative i either.
>>
>> not true,
>
> There are no negatives outside of the subtraction operation with a limit
> at zero. subtracting more at zero is an overshoot in math...
> Nothing is below absolute zero. Just as there is no north of the north
> pole. Remember?

yes sure, absolutely. But the subtraction is not negative either. You
subtract from the larger the smaller. This is how the dynamics works.

On 8/17/2022 1:56 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson presented the following explanation :
>> On 8/17/2022 1:20 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>> On 8/15/2022 4:03 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> by i you have a formula that has no solution...
>>>> Stop moving your i around
>>>> The complex plane is just the extension
>>>> of the imaginary math.... the best
>>>> man can do is pretend that what has no solution
>>>> does... and of course there is no negative i either.
>>>>
>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>
>>>
>>>   i * (Mitchell Raemsch) = 0    ?
>>
>> Less than zero? Oh wait, he does not believe in that. So, zero is
>> okay. ;^)
>
> Multiplying by i is a pure phase operation, the magnitude is invariant.
> Mitchell Raemsch will be *on* the unit circle not at its origin. :)

Was jesting at Mitch's unbelief in negative numbers. I know 1i+0 is at
point (0, 1). That where you plot the point in the 2d (x, y) plane. ;^)

> Of course, he will only see the one dimensional non-negative extended
> hyperreals.

God knows what Mitch is going to see. Humm...

Volney wrote:

> On 8/17/2022 2:20 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> There are no negatives outside of the subtraction operation with a
>> limit at zero. subtracting more at zero is an overshoot in math...
>> Nothing is below absolute zero. Just as there is no north of the north
>> pole. Remember?
>
> You still can't explain negative electric charges, overdrawn bank
> accounts, etc., Roy. Quit trying to project your own stupidity on the
> whole world.

pull my finger. That's *credit*, the overdrawn bank accounts. Which is
*positive*, troll. No brain at you whatsoever.

*pull_my_finger* Volney wrote:

> On 8/17/2022 2:20 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> There are no negatives outside of the subtraction operation with a
>> limit at zero. subtracting more at zero is an overshoot in math...
>> Nothing is below absolute zero. Just as there is no north of the north
>> pole. Remember?
>
> You still can't explain negative electric charges, overdrawn bank
> accounts, etc., Roy. Quit trying to project your own stupidity on the
> whole world.

negative electric charges are a property, you may call it *blue* if you
wish. Nothing negative in it, troll.

you changed you polish name arriving in america. Same thing.

Chris M. Thomasson has brought this to us :
> On 8/17/2022 1:56 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> Chris M. Thomasson presented the following explanation :
>>> On 8/17/2022 1:20 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 8/15/2022 4:03 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> by i you have a formula that has no solution...
>>>>> Stop moving your i around
>>>>> The complex plane is just the extension
>>>>> of the imaginary math.... the best
>>>>> man can do is pretend that what has no solution
>>>>> does... and of course there is no negative i either.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   i * (Mitchell Raemsch) = 0    ?
>>>
>>> Less than zero? Oh wait, he does not believe in that. So, zero is okay.
>>> ;^)
>>
>> Multiplying by i is a pure phase operation, the magnitude is invariant.
>> Mitchell Raemsch will be *on* the unit circle not at its origin. :)
>
> Was jesting at Mitch's unbelief in negative numbers.

So was I. He won't be happy with our moving our i around.

> I know 1i+0 is at point
> (0, 1). That where you plot the point in the 2d (x, y) plane. ;^)
>
>
>> Of course, he will only see the one dimensional non-negative extended
>> hyperreals.
>
> God knows what Mitch is going to see. Humm...

God created the gravity of the situation.

On 8/17/2022 5:51 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson has brought this to us :
>> On 8/17/2022 1:56 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>> Chris M. Thomasson presented the following explanation :
>>>> On 8/17/2022 1:20 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>> On 8/15/2022 4:03 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> by i you have a formula that has no solution...
>>>>>> Stop moving your i around
>>>>>> The complex plane is just the extension
>>>>>> of the imaginary math.... the best
>>>>>> man can do is pretend that what has no solution
>>>>>> does... and of course there is no negative i either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   i * (Mitchell Raemsch) = 0    ?
>>>>
>>>> Less than zero? Oh wait, he does not believe in that. So, zero is okay. ;^)
>>>
>>> Multiplying by i is a pure phase operation, the magnitude is invariant. Mitchell Raemsch will be *on* the unit circle not at its origin. :)
>>
>> Was jesting at Mitch's unbelief in negative numbers.
>
> So was I. He won't be happy with our moving our i around.
>
>> I know 1i+0 is at point (0, 1). That where you plot the point in the 2d (x, y) plane. ;^)
>>
>>
>>> Of course, he will only see the one dimensional non-negative extended hyperreals.
>>
>> God knows what Mitch is going to see. Humm...
>
> God created the gravity of the situation.

Supply-Side God gravity market, keeps stuff together, keeps Mitch's feet on the ground

Now if Mitch is x + iy, and he gets multiplied by i, then he evolves into a -y + ix,

So his real part turned imaginary, AND his imagination got turned real. Swaparooed.

onsdag 17 augusti 2022 kl. 21:12:14 UTC+2 skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 16/08/2022 à 09:38, "zelos...@gmail.com" a écrit :
> > måndag 15 augusti 2022 kl. 23:03:20 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
> >> by i you have a formula that has no solution...
> >> Stop moving your i around
> >> The complex plane is just the extension
> >> of the imaginary math.... the best
> >> man can do is pretend that what has no solution
> >> does... and of course there is no negative i either.
> >>
> >> Mitchell Raemsch
> >
> > x^2+1=0 has a solution, namely i :) and -i
> When I draw the curve y=x²+1, I realize that this curve is a parabola.
>
> I realize that it does not go lower than A=(0,1).
>
> However, it seems that according to what it seems, there is still a
> solution which crosses the x axis and which gives y=0.
>
> This is the point (i,0).
>
> But where do I put this point?
>
> R.H.

If you want to plot it you need a 4D space where 2 of them are input and 2 of them are output, good luck!

On 8/17/2022 9:49 PM, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> onsdag 17 augusti 2022 kl. 21:12:14 UTC+2 skrev Richard Hachel:
>> Le 16/08/2022 à 09:38, "zelos...@gmail.com" a écrit :
>>> måndag 15 augusti 2022 kl. 23:03:20 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
>>>> by i you have a formula that has no solution...
>>>> Stop moving your i around
>>>> The complex plane is just the extension
>>>> of the imaginary math.... the best
>>>> man can do is pretend that what has no solution
>>>> does... and of course there is no negative i either.
>>>>
>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>
>>> x^2+1=0 has a solution, namely i :) and -i
>> When I draw the curve y=x²+1, I realize that this curve is a parabola.
>>
>> I realize that it does not go lower than A=(0,1).
>>
>> However, it seems that according to what it seems, there is still a
>> solution which crosses the x axis and which gives y=0.
>>
>> This is the point (i,0).
>>
>> But where do I put this point?
>>
>> R.H.
>
> If you want to plot it you need a 4D space where 2 of them are input and 2 of them are output, good luck!

I interpret (i, 0) as 1i+0, so we plot it at point (0, 1).

Le 18/08/2022 à 06:49, "zelos...@gmail.com" a écrit :
> onsdag 17 augusti 2022 kl. 21:12:14 UTC+2 skrev Richard Hachel:
>> Le 16/08/2022 à 09:38, "zelos...@gmail.com" a écrit :
>> > måndag 15 augusti 2022 kl. 23:03:20 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
>> >> by i you have a formula that has no solution...
>> >> Stop moving your i around
>> >> The complex plane is just the extension
>> >> of the imaginary math.... the best
>> >> man can do is pretend that what has no solution
>> >> does... and of course there is no negative i either.
>> >>
>> >> Mitchell Raemsch
>> >
>> > x^2+1=0 has a solution, namely i :) and -i
>> When I draw the curve y=x²+1, I realize that this curve is a parabola.
>>
>> I realize that it does not go lower than A=(0,1).
>>
>> However, it seems that according to what it seems, there is still a
>> solution which crosses the x axis and which gives y=0.
>>
>> This is the point (i,0).
>>
>> But where do I put this point?
>>
>> R.H.
>
> If you want to plot it you need a 4D space where 2 of them are input and 2 of
> them are output, good luck!

We skew the problem.

We have a two-dimensional frame, with x and y.

There is no solution for y=0.

Period.

The rest is just useless masturbation.

R.H.

Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
> Le 18/08/2022 à 06:49, "zelos...@gmail.com" a écrit :
>> onsdag 17 augusti 2022 kl. 21:12:14 UTC+2 skrev Richard Hachel:
>>> Le 16/08/2022 à 09:38, "zelos...@gmail.com" a écrit : > måndag 15
>>> augusti 2022 kl. 23:03:20 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com: >> by i
>>> you have a formula that has no solution... >> Stop moving your i
>>> around >> The complex plane is just the extension >> of the imaginary
>>> math.... the best >> man can do is pretend that what has no solution
>>> >> does... and of course there is no negative i either. >> >>
>>> Mitchell Raemsch > > x^2+1=0 has a solution, namely i :) and -i
>>> When I draw the curve y=x²+1, I realize that this curve is a parabola.
>>> I realize that it does not go lower than A=(0,1).
>>> However, it seems that according to what it seems, there is still a
>>> solution which crosses the x axis and which gives y=0.
>>> This is the point (i,0).
>>> But where do I put this point?
>>> R.H.
>>
>> If you want to plot it you need a 4D space where 2 of them are input
>> and 2 of them are output, good luck!
>
>
> We skew the problem.
>
> We have a two-dimensional frame, with x and y.
>
> There is no solution for y=0.
>
> Period.

Nobody has never pretended that x^2 + 1 = 0 has a solution in the set R
of real numbers. Just as x + 1 = 0 has no solution in the set N of
natural numbers, but has a solution in the set Z of relative integers.

The fact is that a bigger set, C, can be constructed where x^2 + 1 = 0
has two solutions. At first expression involving sqrt(-1) were used
without justification and people noticed that it worked well. It even
allows to find real roots for polynomials like x^3 + px + q involving
these weird quantities as intermediates that cancel out eventually.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histoire_des_nombres_complexes

Several rigourous constructions of complex numbers has been found
since then. My favority is Cauchy's one (equivalence classes of
polynomials) but they all are equivalent.

> The rest is just useless masturbation.

It is not. This is an habit for cranks of your kind to qualify
everything they do not understand as "masturbation" (i.e. useless
stuff, I guess...) instead of trying to understand them.

Complex numbers allow to demonstrate a lot of stuff in Algebra in
a simplier way, to determine a lot of primitives that cannot be
found in any other way, to solve easily geometric problems, to
modelize alternative current in electricity, and so on.

This is far from useless.