Imaginary Pythagoras

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter DaveC426913
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the validity of using imaginary numbers in geometric representations, particularly in relation to the Pythagorean theorem and its implications in the complex plane. Participants explore whether such representations have meaningful interpretations or if they are merely mathematical tricks. The conversation touches on concepts from geometry, complex analysis, and Minkowski spacetime.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether the equation involving imaginary numbers (i.e., i² + 1² = 0²) has any meaningful geometric interpretation in the complex plane.
  • Others argue that while the imaginary number line can be treated as an axis, it does not represent lengths in the same way as real numbers do.
  • A participant presents a calculation involving complex vectors, suggesting that the magnitude of the hypotenuse squared can be derived from the differences between two complex numbers.
  • Some mention Minkowski geometry, noting that paths of zero distance correspond to light, and discuss the implications of using imaginary time in this context.
  • There are suggestions for further reading on the topic, including resources that explain relativity without heavy mathematics.
  • One participant highlights the distinction between real and complex analysis, noting that squares in complex analysis can yield negative values, which affects function behavior.
  • Another participant discusses the Argand plane and the conditions under which the Pythagorean theorem may or may not apply, emphasizing the need for clear definitions of mathematical systems.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the interpretations of diagrams and equations presented in the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the validity of using imaginary numbers in geometric contexts. Some agree on the mathematical properties of complex numbers, while others challenge the interpretations and implications of these properties.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about the geometric representations and the definitions of mathematical systems being used. The interpretations of diagrams and equations remain unresolved, contributing to the ongoing debate.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring the intersections of geometry, complex analysis, and physics, particularly in the context of relativity and mathematical interpretations of imaginary numbers.

DaveC426913
Gold Member
2025 Award
Messages
24,286
Reaction score
8,435
TL;DR
Is this geometry valid?
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking.

1757509709322.webp


Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick?

Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2.

But does this have a meaning?

I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero?

Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation:
1757510145918.webp

which I assume makes the apparent paradox go away, but does that mean the first diagram is not valid?

* never learned matrices

I suppose it is theoretically possible to have a triangle with zero length hypotenuse if you look at it edge-on in an abstract 3D space - i.e. the two axes are superimposed.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
DaveC426913 said:
I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero?
A triangle in the complex plane would have the lengths of all of its sides as real numbers; i.e., as the magnitudes of the various quantities. ##|i| = 1##.
DaveC426913 said:
Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation:
I'm not sure what the equation scrawled in the diagram is saying. Is the left side of the equation ##2^{ab}##? If so, I don't understand how that can be equal to a matrix.
DaveC426913 said:
I suppose it is theoretically possible to have a triangle with zero length hypotenuse
If both legs are equal in size and one lies on top of the other, the hypotenuse of such a triangle would be zero, but that's not a very interesting triangle.
 
The problem here is, that ## i ## is not a length. If you write it as real vectors like in the Gaußian plane of complex numbers, then it becomes wrong. If you consider it as a complex equation, then it is correct, but lacks the interpretation in the real world.
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
Complex.webp
You have two vectors in the complex plane:
##Z_1=(0,i)## and ##Z_2=(1,0)##.
Noting that ##Z_1-Z_2 = (-1,i)##, the magnitude of the hypotenuse squared is
##|Z_1-Z_2|^2=(-1,i)^*\cdot(-1,i)=(-1,-i)\cdot(-1,i)=1+1=2.##
This is the sum of the magnitudes-squared of the sides, ##|Z_1|^2+|Z_2|^2.##
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bob012345
DaveC426913 said:
TL;DR Summary: Is this geometry valid?

I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking.

View attachment 365364

Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick?

Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2.

But does this have a meaning?
That's one representation of Minkowski geometry, where the vertical axis is time and the horizontal axis is spatial. The spacetime distance in ##c =1## units is given by:
$$(\Delta s)^2 = -(\Delta t)^2 +(\Delta x)^2$$This is sometimes represented using "imaginary" time.

PS the paths of zero distance are those followed by light.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: nasu and Mike_bb
PeroK said:
That's one representation of Minkowski geometry, where the vertical axis is time and the horizontal axis is spatial. The spacetime distance in ##c =1## units is given by:
$$(\Delta s)^2 = -(\Delta t)^2 +(\Delta x)^2$$This is sometimes represented using "imaginary" time.

PS the paths of zero distance are those followed by light.

Fascinating crossover. Can you suggest where I can read up on this more? (I'm not post-secondary edumacated, so the hard maths is over my head, but the physics may not be*)

*yes, the irony of the notion that these can be separated does not escape me.
 
This is essentially the difference between ##\mathbb{R}^2## and ##\mathbb{C},## and what distinguishes real from complex analysis: squares are no longer automatically non-negative. This has a significant impact on functions.

If you are interested in Minkowski spaces and a notation with imaginary time, then you should read about the Wick rotation. It translates between the two.
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
I recommend
Reflections on Relativity
Book by Kevin Brown
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sbrothy
  • #10
I recommend correcting the thread title! I assumed someone would have done it by now.
 
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: weirdoguy
  • #11
PeroK said:
I recommend correcting the thread title! I assumed someone would have done it by now.
I assumed a pun attempt. "Pitagyros" is one I remember from my school days during more racist times.
 
  • #12
I'm also rather un-edumacated so thanks for these suggestions.
 
  • #13
There are many valid mathematical systems in use. You will need to define the rules where this is valid. Argand chose to make the imaginary axis at right angels to the real axis in the Argand Plane. The imaginary axis is associated with the real axis. The Pythagorean Theorum does not work in the Argand Plane since it is essentially a 1 dimensional object. However if you use the imaginary axis of one Argand Plane with the real axis of a different Argand Plane the example you showed is valid. Two Argand Planes can intersect in a single point at right angels to each other forming a four dimensional coordinate system. Which is what you have done.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: weirdoguy
  • #14
Note the last diagram from my Insight https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativity-rotated-graph-paper/
As others have said, the 0-hypotenuse could suggest a lightlike vector in special relativity.
I don't use complex-numbers in special-relativity.
Below, I use real numbers with a Minkowski spacetime metric.
The vertical-3 is for a timelike-vector and the horizontal-3 is for a spacelike vector.

1759602818262.webp

(The segments count the number of light-clock diamonds along the segment.
The choice of which diagonal distinguishes timelike from spacelike.
All light-clock diamonds have the same area... and are traced out by a standard light-clock carried by the piecewise-inertial observer.
The square-interval is the area of the causal-diamond between two events. It is zero for DF since the diamond is degenerate.)

Try Triangle-4 (You may have to scroll down.) Use the tool in Geogebra toolbar to decorate a segment with light-clock diamonds.
You can drop your own endpoints. Return to the cursor in the toolbar to move the endpoints of your segment.

 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
6K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
11K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
7K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K