Re: Has anyone made a real conlang?

I love complex numbers! You can factorize any polynomial into linear
factors over the complex numbers (not the best reason for liking them
but it was the first thing that came to mind). Also if you generalize to
the complex numbers all sorts of problems seem to become simpler.

> Christophe Grandsire wrote:
>
>> En réponse à Tristan McLeay :
>>
>>> And what, pray tell, is the purpose of these beasts? What problem can't
>>> be solved with real numbers that it requires us to take the sqrt of -1?
>>
>>
>> A lot! And modern physics just can't be correctly presented without
>> using
>> complex numbers. From electricity-magnetism to Quantum Mechanics
>> passing by
>> system technology, you just can't solve any problem without resorting to
>> complex numbers. They are vital for anything that has to do with waves.
>> They are also extremely practical to solve trigonometric problems, and
>> simplify greatly calculations involving sines and cosines (both things
>> are
>> related of course). And for things like optics (and dynamics too,
>> although
>> there people tend to avoid using them ;)) ), you even have to go further
>> and resort to Quaternions, which resort not to one but three roots of
>> -1,
>> all perpendicular to each other, and get rid of the commutative
>> assumption
>> of multiplication.
>
>
> So in other words they're like women: totally evil but absolutely
> necessary?[1]
>
> [1]: I hope the women who read this take it in the spirit it was
> intended, which is about as far removed from insulting as possible.
>
>>>  and how about the sqrt of -5?
>>
>>
>> Easy: -5 can also be written 5*-1, and thus the square root of -5 (the
>> sign
>> for the square root isn't used with complex numbers under it as it often
>> leads to incorrect statements) is simply sqrt(5)*i.
>>
>>> or the 4th root (is that the right term?) of -1?
>>
>>
>> You mean the square root of the square root of -1? It's
>> (1/sqrt(2))*(1+i).
>> Just take its square according to the usual rules (not forgetting
>> i^2=-1)
>> and you'll see it's correct :) .
>
>
> Indeed it is.
>
>> As you may guess from the shape of the
>> thing, the connection with trigonometry is appearing quickly :) . To
>> confuse you even more, a common way to write it down is exp(i*Pi/4)
>> ;)))) .
>
>
> exp(x)=e^x?
>
>>> [1]: I don't know how one might define that, so you can be generous.
>>> [2]: I haven't officially come across imaginary numbers, but I've heard
>>> a bit about them. Basically that i=sqrt(-1) and not much more... We're
>>> supposed to come across them sometime in one of the Maths I'm doing
>>> this
>>> semester...
>>
>>
>> Well, if you need more of a proof that complex numbers are necessary,
>> well,
>> let me say that in the last five years of my scientific cursus
>
>
> Been cursing science a lot, have you? or just cursing in a scientific
> way? :P
>
>> I've had to
>> use complex numbers nearly everyday. They are vital for modern science.
>
>
> Wow. I'm impressed. I'd asked this question to a few people, but no-one
> could answer it (the best I'd got was from my father: 'something to do
> with trigonometry' I think (he used to be a mechanical engineer)). I
> hadn't really asked anyone who would really know, though, I don't think.
>
>>> Nevertheless, I'm going to have to work on a language that has it! I
>>> wonder if it's compatible with Pidse! :)
>>
>>
>> LOL. First learn about complex numbers, and then include a language that
>> uses their polar form ;))) .
>
>
> I'll see what I can do :)
>
> --
> Tristan                  <kesuari@...>
>
> "Dealing with failure is easy: Work hard to improve. Success is also
> easy to handle: You've solved the wrong problem. Work hard to improve."
>
> - Alan Perlis
>