Conceptio › Archive › Stack Exchange
Stack Exchange open access CC BY-SA

Why don't we define "imaginary" numbers for every "impossibility"?

lily · 2012
Stack Exchange · Datasets · License: CC BY-SA · 2012
Open Source ↗
math
Before, the concept of imaginary numbers, the number $i = \sqrt{-1}$ was shown to have no solution among the numbers that we had. So we declared $i$ to be a new type of number. How come we don't do the same for other "impossible" equations, such as $x = x + 1$, or $x = 1/0$? Edit: OK, a lot of people have said that a number $x$ such that $x = x + 1$ would break the rule that $0 \neq 1$. However, let's look at the extension from whole numbers to include negative numbers (yes, I said that I wasn't going to include this) by defining $-1$ to be the number such that $-1 + 1 = 0$. Note that this breaks the "rule" that "if $x \leq y$, then $ax \leq ay$ ", which was true for all $a, x, y$ before the introduction of negative numbers. So I'm not convinced that "That would break some obvious truth about all numbers" is necessarily an argument against this sort of thing.
Conceptio Open Archive

Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio

Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.

This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗

Related documents

Record · ID 787365
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive