B Imaginary Pythagorus

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter DaveC426913
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the validity of using imaginary numbers in geometric representations, particularly in the context of the Pythagorean theorem. Participants explore whether a triangle can exist in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of zero length, noting that while mathematically possible, it lacks real-world significance. The conversation touches on Minkowski geometry, where time and space are represented with imaginary components, and mentions the implications of using complex numbers in mathematical functions. Suggestions for further reading include resources on relativity and the distinction between real and complex analysis. The thread concludes with a humorous note about the title's pun.
DaveC426913
Gold Member
Messages
23,839
Reaction score
7,834
TL;DR Summary
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.
 
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.##
 
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.
 
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.
 
I recommend
Reflections on Relativity
Book by Kevin Brown
 
  • #10
I recommend correcting the thread title! I assumed someone would have done it by now.
 
  • #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.
 
Back
Top