Results 21 to 30 of 48

- 07-11-2018, 01:08 AM #21

- Join Date
- Oct 2014
- Posts
- 2,223

- 07-11-2018, 05:24 AM #22
## Re: fallacy with imaginary numbers

Last edited by grapes; 07-11-2018 at 05:27 AM. Reason: Correct link to post #8

- 07-12-2018, 12:45 AM #23

- Join Date
- Oct 2014
- Posts
- 2,223

## Re: fallacy with imaginary numbers

And that is your mistake. You are using a definition. You are defining a true statement as false:

is true

but according to your definition it is false.

You have been given enough evidence proving you wrong, but you are systematically ignoring it all.

You are ignoring the multivaluedness of the square root function, although you said "of course", thus contradicting

yourself. It is perhaps best either to agree or disagree, but not to do both at the same time.

You wrote that "The radical means a single-valued function", but that's only because of your definition. It might be

better to avoid definitions althogether, if they allow you to define anything that you want, even impossibilities like defining true as false.

- 07-12-2018, 06:19 PM #24
## Re: fallacy with imaginary numbers

I'm using the same definition as the article that you quoted in the OP.

You can't avoid using definitions. You can choose to use your own, or you can choose to use the ones that everybody else uses.

You are defining a true statement as false:

is true

but according to your definition it is false.

You have been given enough evidence proving you wrong, but you are systematically ignoring it all.

You are ignoring the multivaluedness of the square root function, although you said "of course", thus contradicting

yourself.

ETA: Nobody else is ignoring them either!

It is perhaps best either to agree or disagree, but not to do both at the same time.

You wrote that "The radical means a single-valued function", but that's only because of your definition. It might be

better to avoid definitions althogether, if they allow you to define anything that you want, even impossibilities like defining true as false.

You should learn what definitions others are using before you criticize them.Last edited by grapes; 07-12-2018 at 06:33 PM. Reason: ETA

- 07-13-2018, 01:26 PM #25

- Join Date
- Oct 2014
- Posts
- 2,223

## Re: fallacy with imaginary numbers

Both you and the wikipedia article end up with the fallacy -1 = +1

And that is because you both use the same definition.

I don't use my own definitions. You don't completely understand the definition you use because you end up with the fallacy. I have told how to solve the fallacy by refuting the wikipedia's denial that both

are true.

Obviously you are ignoring multivaluedness of the square root function.

I know the definitions others are using, in fact I know them better then them because how else could I know that what they are doing is wrong. They don't know the solution to the fallacy.

- 07-13-2018, 01:40 PM #26
## Re: fallacy with imaginary numbers

Read the article again. They present that as a fallacy, and point out the reason for the fallacy.

I don't use my own definitions. You don't completely understand the definition you use because you end up with the fallacy. I have told how to solve the fallacy by refuting the wikipedia's denial that both

are true.

Obviously you are ignoring multivaluedness of the square root function.

I know the definitions others are using, in fact I know them better then them because how else could I know that what they are doing is wrong. They don't know the solution to the fallacy.Last edited by grapes; 07-13-2018 at 01:44 PM. Reason: ETA

- 07-14-2018, 01:03 AM #27

- Join Date
- Oct 2014
- Posts
- 2,223

## Re: fallacy with imaginary numbers

I don't have "my definitions", I don't use own definitions. You keep on telling that

means +3 = -3

That's exactly what you do. You falsely conclude to be true, and you won't be able to

recognize it as a mistake.

The wikipedia article explains that we must suitably constrain the variables in the equality and that in this case the equality does not hold as the numbers are both negative. So let's assume that is right see what happens:

Conclusion: it might help if they first learned to take a square root before starting manipulating the truth. The question is: How can they take a square root of a negative number -9, if they can't even take a square root of a positive number +9?

- 07-14-2018, 01:40 AM #28
## Re: fallacy with imaginary numbers

You use different definitions from everyone else, whosever they are.

You keep on telling that

means +3 = -3

That's exactly what you do. You falsely conclude to be true, and you won't be able to

recognize it as a mistake.

The wikipedia article explains that we must suitably constrain the variables in the equality and that in this case the equality does not hold as the numbers are both negative. So let's assume that is right see what happens:

Conclusion: it might help if they first learned to take a square root before starting manipulating the truth. The question is: How can they take a square root of a negative number -9, if they can't even take a square root of a positive number +9?Last edited by grapes; 07-14-2018 at 01:45 AM. Reason: In what post

- 07-14-2018, 01:43 AM #29

- Join Date
- Oct 2014
- Posts
- 2,223

- 07-14-2018, 12:13 PM #30
## Re: fallacy with imaginary numbers

You're certainly using a different definition for the radical sign, that much is clear.

You may not like the usual definition, but you're still not using the usual definition.

You don't understand the definitions you use. Tha's why you constantly get everything wrong.

so are you telling

means +3 ≠ -3 ?

## Bookmarks