this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
808 points (95.9% liked)

memes

10440 readers
2637 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] profdc9@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Little known fact: the imaginary numbers are the algebraic closure of the irrational numbers.

[–] g_the_b@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Is it not real numbers? eg x² + 1 = 0

[–] Nomecks@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] uis@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)
[–] Asifall@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Yes the obscure and little known fundamental theorem of algebra

[–] Chrobin@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Is this some joke I'm not getting? Cause yes, real numbers are the closure of irrational numbers, but imaginary numbers are just isomorphic to them.

[–] CompassRed@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

You're thinking of topological closure. We're talking about algebraic closure; however, complex numbers are often described as the algebraic closure of the reals, not the irrationals. Also, the imaginary numbers (complex numbers with a real part of zero) are in no meaningful way isomorphic to the real numbers. Perhaps you could say their addition groups are isomorphic or that they are isomorphic as topological spaces, but that's about it. There isn't an isomorphism that preserves the whole structure of the reals - the imaginary numbers aren't even closed under multiplication, for example.

[–] Chrobin@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 5 months ago

You're right, I mixed it up with the complex numbers being isomorphic to R^2. Thanks for clearing it up!

Love btw how I get downvoted for an honest mistake.