Monday, 14 April 2014

Why is this definition of complex numbers "informal"?

I'm reading the proofwiki page about complex number: https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Definition:Complex_Number



According to proofwiki there is an informal and formal definitions of complex numbers. The informal definition is that a complex number is equal to a+bi where a,bR and where i is defined to be the square root of 1. What is informal about this definition ?




I guess that this is because you can just define i to be so that i2=1. But I don't totally get why this is. Would it be formal if I defined i as a number that has all field properties of real numbers, and i2=1 ?



The only problem I see is that you could argue that there are 2 of those numbers. So which one is meant ? But if you prove that it doesn't matter which one you pick, would this definition then be formal ?



Btw, I'm aware that my reasoning is probably wrong, but I think it is helpfull if I share what is going on in my mind.

No comments:

Post a Comment

real analysis - How to find limhrightarrow0fracsin(ha)h

How to find lim without lhopital rule? I know when I use lhopital I easy get $$ \lim_{h\rightarrow 0}...