There have been a number of Scientific discoveries that seemed to be purely scientific curiosities that later turned out to be incredibly useful. Hertz famously commented about the discovery of radio waves: “I do not think that the wireless waves I have discovered will have any practical application.”

Are there examples like this in math as well? What is the most interesting “pure math” discovery that proved to be useful in solving a real-world problem?

  • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    I don’t think this is really an accurate way of thinking about them. Yes, they can be mapped to a 2d plane, so you can represent them with their two real-numbered coordinates along the real and imaginary axes, but certain operations with them (eg. multiplication) can be done easily with complex numbers but are not obvious how to carry out with just grid points. (3,4) * (5,6) isn’t well-defined, but (3+4i) * (5+6i) is.

    • pcalau12i@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      I am having genuine difficulty imagining in your head how you think you made a point here. It seems you’re claiming that given if two vectors have the same symbols between them, they should have identical output, such as (a,b) * (c,d) should have the same mathematical definition as (a+bi) * (c+di), or complex numbers are not reducible to real numbers.

      You realize mathematical symbols are just conventions, right? They were not handed down to us from Zeus almighty. They are entirely human creations. I can happily define the meaning of (a,b) * (c,d) to be (ac-bd,ad+bc) and now it is mathematically well-defined and gives identical results.

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        Right, but you need to specify that additional definition. Imaginary numbers are useful because they come pre-loaded with all those additional definitions about how to handle operations that use them.

        I also find your hostile confusion unwarranted, given two other commenters have pointed out the same flaw in your argument that I have.