256
Some things don't change
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2025
256 points (98.5% liked)
memes
16521 readers
673 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You could make the same argument for things like mathematics before the discovery about imaginary numbers.
Ehh imaginary numbers added to the scope of mathematics it didn't take away anything other than no's.
"hey look, i got your no's!"
No, it changed things like "what are the roots of x² + 2x + 2" from "none" to "two".
The answer to that question didn't change, what changed is how you might interpret the question.
If I asked “what are the REAL roots of x² + 2x + 2” the answer is still "none". And prior to imaginary numbers being widely used, that is how the question would have been understood.
Mathematics involves making choices about what set of rules we're working with. If you don't allow the concept of negative numbers, the equation "x+1=0" has no solution. If you give me an apple, then I have no apples, how many apples did I have before? The question describes an impossible situation, and that's a perfectly valid way to view it.
Different sets of rules can change what's possible but don't invalidate conclusions based on other sets of rules. We just need to specify what set of rules we're working with.
My entire point is that before they weren't saying "real" versus "imaginary". You're proving my point. In the other fields mentioned you could make the same argument about the interpretation changing but the book still being useful.
The other fields are attempting to describe reality. While Newtonian physics is useful, as an approximation, it's also quite clearly wrong. You can imagine a universe which follows those rules but it's not this universe, and that's why it's wrong. Mathematics doesn't care about this universe, so you can pick whatever rules you want. Imaginary numbers are not "more accurate", they don't invalidate any previous understanding. They are an imaginary concept with interesting properties. For mathematics, that's enough.