Talk:Imaginary unit

message: I have a masters degree in electronic engineering; when performing calculations using complex numbers we use the letter j to represent the square root of minus one as i is already reserved for use when handling electric current.
I have tried to add this to the Wikipedia article several times in different parts of the article but it keeps being deleted.
Please explain why? 2A02:C7C:6A71:C100:19F5:FA75:1F7C:7685 (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already mentioned in the last paragraph of the introduction. Mindmatrix 12:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  j 

message: I'd say that "labeled" is American and "labelled" is British.  Some random web page agrees with me. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 22:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. As far as I can see the only relevant effect of that is to increase the justification for the reverting of a WP:ENGVAR violation, which must be what you have in mind. JBW (talk | contribs) 08:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: On this talk page, should we tag the version of English to be used via  or ?  I don't care which, so long as we pick one.  —Quantling (talk | contribs) 17:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Consistent with using "labelled" instead of "labeled", I am assuming that we are using standard British spelling for this article.  I have changed "generalize" to "generalise". I have marked this talk page with .  —Quantling (talk | contribs) 14:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to normalize (normalise?) to British spelling. I don't think most wiki authors notice or really care either way. I would expect American spellings to sneak back in over time, since wiki authors typically just spell words the way they are used to and don't know how to spell them by a different regional variant, but you or someone else is welcome to come back through and change those again. –jacobolus (t) 16:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  American vs. British spelling. 

message: The first footnote links to a  textbook on archive.org which is no longer available. --Rpresser 00:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Replaced with b:Circuit Theory link where j is used as imaginary unit. — Rgdboer (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: What is the difference between imaginary number and imaginary unit? of Wikipedia The name of another article is imaginary number. Aren't these two articles about the same thing? The most logical thing to do is to merge the articles (or delete one of them). Bera678 (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You already started another conversation about this at . Let's keep answers over there. –jacobolus (t) 17:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same Articles 

message: I did the edit of the "Imaginary unit" article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imaginary_unit&oldid=1191290048.
- Charles Ewan Milner  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Ewan Milner (talk • contribs) 17:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See my question on your user talk page: User talk:Charles Ewan Milner#Logged out?. - DVdm (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note about how I made a certain edit to the article - By Charles Ewan Milner 

message: Powers of i come after a few things in the properties section. But shouldn't this be at the top? Aren't the powers of i the most important among these? Bera678 (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly what you were indicating, but I agree in part and boldly made an edit.  What do you think?  —Quantling (talk | contribs) 17:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

text: With edits after mine we've lost that, with cube roots, the polar forms are computed as , , and .  Instead we jump straight to ,  , and  .  Might we restore the former?  I think it strongly hints at how the reader could handle (integer) -th roots generally. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 18:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And even with square roots, I'd like to see these kinds of hints for computing the polar forms. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 18:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

text: The previous version wasted a lot of space. Maybe instead we can put a general expression for nth roots. –jacobolus (t) 18:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd like to do that ... thanks! —Quantling (talk | contribs) 18:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Thats good but i think the old roots part is more simple for readers. Bera678 (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a general how-to. We should try to be accessible, but we don't need to go way out of our way to present every step of demonstrating every bit of reference trivia. When we do that, the articles tend become bloated and unfocused. –jacobolus (t) 18:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Do you think it makes sense to add a link to the 'exp' function in this section? Bera678 (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Powers of i 

message: Although somewhat trivial, addition, subtraction (of imaginary units or imaginary units with real numbers), and scalar multiplication (of an imaginary unit by a real number) are not covered in this article. Should they be?—Anita5192 (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a brief mention sounds right to me.  Please give it a go.  —Quantling (talk | contribs) 18:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Maybe. Bera678 (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

text: I took it out, and replaced it with material more specifically relevant to i per se. We should not be rehashing the entire article complex number here. –jacobolus (t) 19:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arithmetic 

message: I am used to seeing terms like ; that is the real number is first, then mathematical constants, then variables, and then the imaginary .  (Well, if any of those factors is itself more complicated than a single letter then that can change the ordering ... but ignoring that for now.)  But, we don't seem to be using that, at least not consistently.  If we go for a consistent order, what order would you like to see?  For example, do you like  or ?   or ?   or  or ...? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 19:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The  ordering seems more common in calculus, but I seem to remember  being more common in digital signal processing. For example, .—Anita5192 (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

text: It really doesn't matter, both are widespread. We should try to be somewhat consistent within an article, but if sometimes one order or another seems clearer, we shouldn't hesitate to swap the order. It's not too hard for readers to figure out these mean the same. –jacobolus (t) 19:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of factors 

message: In the section "Other operations", I liked having the short list of operations that remain (single-valued) functions when  is used.  Finding an example there reassures the reader that these particular examples do not fall into the other category, "many functions involving  are complex multi-valued functions". —Quantling (talk | contribs) 22:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: These just don't seem that relevant to the quantity  per se. This article was (and somewhat still is) a random grab bag of trivia, describing what happens when you apply whatever arbitrary function to the value . But most of these examples are not really very interesting or useful, the input  is not special in any way for these functions, the source given is some list of digits at the OEIS (a resource whose primary purpose is to be a database of miscellaneous numerical trivia, which persists because querying such a database can help make connections meaningful to research questions). This Wikipedia article is supposed to have a different purpose: explaining to the reader what the imaginary unit is, why it is important, how it is used in practice, and how it relates to other ideas. Telling the value of every special function at the input i does not really help with any of those goals. –jacobolus (t) 22:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on other operations 

message: In the picture, the representation of the imaginary number on the number line is given. Don't you think it would be better to focus this picture directly on the imaginary number? For example, we can put the letter 'i'(as in math template). Bera678 (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Which figure? What in the figure are you referring to?—Anita5192 (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Imaginary unit(i)  Bera678 (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This does not answer my questions.  Which figure?  What specifically in the figure?—Anita5192 (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am assuming they mean the figure from the top of the article, :File:ImaginaryUnit5.svg, which I have also added as a thumbnail above, with the caption currently in the article. –jacobolus (t) 17:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

text: I don't see how the picture fails to "focus directly on the imaginary number". I clearly see the letter i. - DVdm (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Like this picture, letter on the left. Bera678 (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seeing how the article goes to great lengths not to see the imaginary unit as √-1, this would be very counter-productive. Please read Imaginary unit#Proper use, which is the only place where √-1 is used, and why that is bad practice. - DVdm (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sqrt(-1), just the letter i, symbol of imaginary unit. Bera678 (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you show this picture then? If you are referring to the the letter i in that picture, that one is already in the current article's image. See top middle of the image here on this page, clearly showing "+i" - DVdm (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think just 'i' is more better than this. Bera678 (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that having both +i and -i in the image is better. - DVdm (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: OK Bera678 (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture  

message: The reference "Grassmann’s Vision" by Hestenes says, "the imaginary unit i must be interpreted as the unit bivector for the plane containing a and b, something Grassmann never realized." Given that this subsection put forward to motivate use of the imaginary unit relies on Hestenes speculation and links to Geometric algebra and Bivectors for foundation, it is unsupported mathematically. Remarks are invited concerning this subsection motivating imaginary units. — Rgdboer (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've made the footnote more precise: "The interpretation of the imaginary unit as the ratio of two perpendicular vectors was first proposed by Hermann Grassmann in the foreword to his Ausdehnungslehre of 1844; later William Clifford realized that this ratio could be interpreted as a bivector." –jacobolus (t) 02:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This one might still be a bit misleading, insofar as several previous authors over the previous half century proposed geometrical interpretations of complex numbers. I'll think about how to give a couple-sentence summary that is accurate but not too confusing. –jacobolus (t) 03:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

text: It's page 14–15 here: https://archive.org/details/newbranchofmathe0000gras/page/14/ –jacobolus (t) 02:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Grassmann-Hestenes unit