Image not available

720x1086

1712909188575.png

๐Ÿงต Untitled Thread

Anonymous No. 16125262

How can anyone take "complex numbers" seriously after this?

Anonymous No. 16125285

what is your problem nigga

Image not available

427x655

1712840776262631.jpg

Anonymous No. 16125298

>>16125285
>FART

Image not available

693x720

1712912282612.png

Anonymous No. 16125331

>>16125285
Two non-intersecting circles do not intersect. Extending the domain of the circle equation to so called "complex numbers" is a purely algebraic trick. It does not mean the circles intersect in some "imaginary" space. Because the object described by a circle equation with "complex" domain is geometrically not a circle anymore.

Barkon No. 16125333

>>16125331
You're retarded
But this is nothing new.
I often post pointing out the retarded.
It's lonely world of truly good thought in my mind
Pity I'm around the retarded

Anonymous No. 16125345

>>16125333
Show me a "complex circle", lmao.

Cult of Passion No. 16125361

>>16125345
>complex circle
You realize thats just a form of dynamic basing, right?

Barkon No. 16125363

>>16125345
Too hard for your retard brain

Anonymous No. 16125371

Complex numbers are imaginary intersections.
Parabola y=x^2+1 meets line x=0. Obviously they never actually intersect but compex numbers allows impossible to happen. They are truly the reddit of numbers.

Anonymous No. 16125387

>>16125371
Good example. Taking the parabola y=x^2+1 and the line y=0 and then just declaring x and y to be "complex" constitutes a categorical error. These equations cease to describe parabola and line when the coordinates are suddenly not 1-dimensional but 2-dimensional. Whatever weird surfaces you're intersecting there, you're doing something extremely ungeometric.