|
|
|
|
|
by xtajv
128 days ago
|
|
[Obligatory: Engineering background. Not an expert] I've always found it a bit odd that we DO define "i" to help us express complex numbers, with the convenient assumption that "i = sqrt(-1)"... but we DON'T have any such symbols to map between more than 2 dimensions. I felt a bit better when I found out about
- (nth) roots of unity (to explore other "i"-like definitions, including things like roots of unity modulo n, and hidden abelian subgroup problems which feel a bit to me like dealing with orthogonal dimensions)
- tensors (e.g. in physics, when we need a better way to discuss more than 2 dimensions, and often establish syntactic sugar for (x,y,z,t)) IDK if that helps at all (or worse, simply betrays some misunderstanding of mine. If so, please complain- I'd appreciate the correction!) |
|