Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 12:53:48 UTC No. 16259679

Obviously not. Why the fuck would it? Those are completely different subjects.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 13:25:11 UTC No. 16259731

>>16259556
Functional analysis relies on both real and complex analysis in order to be sound. Your question makes as little sense as saying "can you replace an engine with a car?" A car needs an engine to be a car. Functional analysis needs real analysis (and some amount of analytic function theory) in order to make any sense at all, as real analysis will give you the set theoretic foundations to produce functional analytic understandings of measurable set mappings.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 13:43:32 UTC No. 16259769

>>16259556
Complex analysis doesn't need to be replaced, it needs to be abolished. Imaginary "numbers" were a mistake.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 13:45:11 UTC No. 16259771

>>16259769
Ask me how I know you've never studied complex analysis.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 13:48:13 UTC No. 16259778

>>16259771
I did study it. That's how I grew to hate it.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 13:51:50 UTC No. 16259784

>>16259778
What did you hate about it?

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 14:00:38 UTC No. 16259793

>>16259784
It's ungeometric.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 14:30:12 UTC No. 16259829

>>16259793
Wrong.