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

memes

10393 readers
1990 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
[–] linja@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I know this is a joke, but wrong about what, exactly? I don't get it.

Also, and maybe this has something to do with the joke I'm not getting, the way complex numbers are motivated in school is a lie, and a stupid one. Mathematicians were perfectly comfortable with certain equations having no solutions; the problem was when their equations told them there were no solutions when they could see the solutions: the curve x^3^ - 15x + 4 crosses the x-axis, but Cardano's cubic formula gives up due to negative square roots. Imaginary numbers were originally no more than an ephemeral reasoning tool, and were only reluctantly accepted as entities in their own right because of how damn useful they were.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] linja@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If I'm not meant to think about it until understanding emerges, then that means it should be immediately understandable without thinking. It is not.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Sometimes it's better to just accept that you don't get the joke and move on.

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

I might not find a joke funny, or I might not have the necessary context to appreciate it; that's "not getting" a joke. If it's possible to have too much context to appreciate a "joke", it's at the expense of people who know more than the audience.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Bruh, who cares.

Stop complaining.

[–] linja@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

It might seem harmless, but the purpose of a joke is to draw a distinction between those who get it and those who don't, fostering a sense of community. In this "joke", the in-group is people who don't know something; the community ideal fostered there is that knowledge is undesirable, that anything that seems unintuitive to the uninformed mind is inherently ridiculous. The "joke" has no effect if it doesn't do this. Entertaining the idea without challenge is dangerous.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago
[–] Carrot@lemmy.today 1 points 5 months ago

That's where you're wrong. The joke is based around a play on words: the generally accepted definition of imaginary, and a math term. Thus, the in-group for this joke are people familiar with the common definition of imaginary, and familiar with the fact that "imaginary numbers" is a term used by mathematicians. The joke being that, if they use the term "imaginary numbers", then someone came up with numbers that don't fundamentally exist, and they were only used to cheat out an answer to a difficult problem. Of course, in math this isn't the case, the numbers most definitely exist. To me it just seems like you're trying to be a pompous know-it-all and ruin people's fun, but you can't even do that correctly because you didn't understand what the joke even was.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Imaginary numbers were originally no more than an ephemeral reasoning tool, and were only reluctantly accepted as entities in their own right because of how damn useful they were.

That, there, is the story of pretty much all maths. There were occasional mentions of zero and debates about whether it's a number or not in old Europe, it only became widely accepted once base 10 became popular. And people still can't agree whether the natural numbers contain it!

[–] linja@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Hah. Church tried to ban it because it was "associated with illegal money trading", I remember that. What is it about maths that makes non-mathematicians think themselves qualified to judge matters they don't understand?

[–] ouRKaoS@lemmy.today 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

They did five minutes of research on ~~the internet~~ a stone tablet so their opinion is just as valid.

[–] linja@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

I only read one book, and it's a Good Book, don't you know!