Understanding Definition of Complex Number












2












$begingroup$


In the book "Linear Algebra Done Right", a complex number is defined as: "an ordered pair $(a, b)$ , where $a, b in Bbb{R}$, but we will write this as $a + bi$."



"The set of all complex numbers is denoted by $Bbb{C}$:
$$ Bbb{C}={a+bi : a, b in Bbb{R}} $$"



Where did this imaginary number come from? What is wrong just an ordered pair?



I am not understanding what the imaginary number has to do with representing an ordered pair. Please note that I am revisiting math years after taking any type of formal math course. Currently I am interesting in linear algebra, and interested in understanding all math.






complex-numbers







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Where did this imaginary number come from? There is no reference to any "imaginary number" in the definition you quoted. It's just a matter of notation, like saying that the ordered pair $(a,b)$ will, for convenience, be hereafter written as $a$ ☆ + $b$ ★, where in this case ☆$=$ nothing, and ★$ = i$.
    $endgroup$
    – dxiv
    Jul 7 '18 at 5:34












  • $begingroup$
    $a+bi$ is just a synomym for $(a,b)$ to start with. But you will want to think of it later (when we have defined a multiplication for these pairs) as $a times 1 + b times i$, where $i$ is a shorthand for the pair $(0,1)$. We will identify all pairs $(a,0)$ with $a in mathbb{R}$ with $mathbb{R}$ itself, and extend the multiplication of pairs to extend the one on the reals.
    $endgroup$
    – Henno Brandsma
    Jul 7 '18 at 5:46












  • $begingroup$
    Just two different ways of writing the same idea. You are free to do this in Mathematics, so long as you clearly define what you mean, and you would only write such things if there's good justification to do so.
    $endgroup$
    – Antinous
    Jul 7 '18 at 6:13
















2












$begingroup$


In the book "Linear Algebra Done Right", a complex number is defined as: "an ordered pair $(a, b)$ , where $a, b in Bbb{R}$, but we will write this as $a + bi$."



"The set of all complex numbers is denoted by $Bbb{C}$:
$$ Bbb{C}={a+bi : a, b in Bbb{R}} $$"



Where did this imaginary number come from? What is wrong just an ordered pair?



I am not understanding what the imaginary number has to do with representing an ordered pair. Please note that I am revisiting math years after taking any type of formal math course. Currently I am interesting in linear algebra, and interested in understanding all math.






complex-numbers







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Where did this imaginary number come from? There is no reference to any "imaginary number" in the definition you quoted. It's just a matter of notation, like saying that the ordered pair $(a,b)$ will, for convenience, be hereafter written as $a$ ☆ + $b$ ★, where in this case ☆$=$ nothing, and ★$ = i$.
    $endgroup$
    – dxiv
    Jul 7 '18 at 5:34












  • $begingroup$
    $a+bi$ is just a synomym for $(a,b)$ to start with. But you will want to think of it later (when we have defined a multiplication for these pairs) as $a times 1 + b times i$, where $i$ is a shorthand for the pair $(0,1)$. We will identify all pairs $(a,0)$ with $a in mathbb{R}$ with $mathbb{R}$ itself, and extend the multiplication of pairs to extend the one on the reals.
    $endgroup$
    – Henno Brandsma
    Jul 7 '18 at 5:46












  • $begingroup$
    Just two different ways of writing the same idea. You are free to do this in Mathematics, so long as you clearly define what you mean, and you would only write such things if there's good justification to do so.
    $endgroup$
    – Antinous
    Jul 7 '18 at 6:13














2












2








2





$begingroup$


In the book "Linear Algebra Done Right", a complex number is defined as: "an ordered pair $(a, b)$ , where $a, b in Bbb{R}$, but we will write this as $a + bi$."



"The set of all complex numbers is denoted by $Bbb{C}$:
$$ Bbb{C}={a+bi : a, b in Bbb{R}} $$"



Where did this imaginary number come from? What is wrong just an ordered pair?



I am not understanding what the imaginary number has to do with representing an ordered pair. Please note that I am revisiting math years after taking any type of formal math course. Currently I am interesting in linear algebra, and interested in understanding all math.






complex-numbers







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




In the book "Linear Algebra Done Right", a complex number is defined as: "an ordered pair $(a, b)$ , where $a, b in Bbb{R}$, but we will write this as $a + bi$."



"The set of all complex numbers is denoted by $Bbb{C}$:
$$ Bbb{C}={a+bi : a, b in Bbb{R}} $$"



Where did this imaginary number come from? What is wrong just an ordered pair?



I am not understanding what the imaginary number has to do with representing an ordered pair. Please note that I am revisiting math years after taking any type of formal math course. Currently I am interesting in linear algebra, and interested in understanding all math.






complex-numbers




complex-numbers






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 23 '18 at 3:32









Eric Wofsey

188k14216347




188k14216347










asked Jul 7 '18 at 5:25









craydencrayden

1134




1134












  • $begingroup$
    Where did this imaginary number come from? There is no reference to any "imaginary number" in the definition you quoted. It's just a matter of notation, like saying that the ordered pair $(a,b)$ will, for convenience, be hereafter written as $a$ ☆ + $b$ ★, where in this case ☆$=$ nothing, and ★$ = i$.
    $endgroup$
    – dxiv
    Jul 7 '18 at 5:34












  • $begingroup$
    $a+bi$ is just a synomym for $(a,b)$ to start with. But you will want to think of it later (when we have defined a multiplication for these pairs) as $a times 1 + b times i$, where $i$ is a shorthand for the pair $(0,1)$. We will identify all pairs $(a,0)$ with $a in mathbb{R}$ with $mathbb{R}$ itself, and extend the multiplication of pairs to extend the one on the reals.
    $endgroup$
    – Henno Brandsma
    Jul 7 '18 at 5:46












  • $begingroup$
    Just two different ways of writing the same idea. You are free to do this in Mathematics, so long as you clearly define what you mean, and you would only write such things if there's good justification to do so.
    $endgroup$
    – Antinous
    Jul 7 '18 at 6:13


















  • $begingroup$
    Where did this imaginary number come from? There is no reference to any "imaginary number" in the definition you quoted. It's just a matter of notation, like saying that the ordered pair $(a,b)$ will, for convenience, be hereafter written as $a$ ☆ + $b$ ★, where in this case ☆$=$ nothing, and ★$ = i$.
    $endgroup$
    – dxiv
    Jul 7 '18 at 5:34












  • $begingroup$
    $a+bi$ is just a synomym for $(a,b)$ to start with. But you will want to think of it later (when we have defined a multiplication for these pairs) as $a times 1 + b times i$, where $i$ is a shorthand for the pair $(0,1)$. We will identify all pairs $(a,0)$ with $a in mathbb{R}$ with $mathbb{R}$ itself, and extend the multiplication of pairs to extend the one on the reals.
    $endgroup$
    – Henno Brandsma
    Jul 7 '18 at 5:46












  • $begingroup$
    Just two different ways of writing the same idea. You are free to do this in Mathematics, so long as you clearly define what you mean, and you would only write such things if there's good justification to do so.
    $endgroup$
    – Antinous
    Jul 7 '18 at 6:13
















$begingroup$
Where did this imaginary number come from? There is no reference to any "imaginary number" in the definition you quoted. It's just a matter of notation, like saying that the ordered pair $(a,b)$ will, for convenience, be hereafter written as $a$ ☆ + $b$ ★, where in this case ☆$=$ nothing, and ★$ = i$.
$endgroup$
– dxiv
Jul 7 '18 at 5:34






$begingroup$
Where did this imaginary number come from? There is no reference to any "imaginary number" in the definition you quoted. It's just a matter of notation, like saying that the ordered pair $(a,b)$ will, for convenience, be hereafter written as $a$ ☆ + $b$ ★, where in this case ☆$=$ nothing, and ★$ = i$.
$endgroup$
– dxiv
Jul 7 '18 at 5:34














$begingroup$
$a+bi$ is just a synomym for $(a,b)$ to start with. But you will want to think of it later (when we have defined a multiplication for these pairs) as $a times 1 + b times i$, where $i$ is a shorthand for the pair $(0,1)$. We will identify all pairs $(a,0)$ with $a in mathbb{R}$ with $mathbb{R}$ itself, and extend the multiplication of pairs to extend the one on the reals.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Jul 7 '18 at 5:46






$begingroup$
$a+bi$ is just a synomym for $(a,b)$ to start with. But you will want to think of it later (when we have defined a multiplication for these pairs) as $a times 1 + b times i$, where $i$ is a shorthand for the pair $(0,1)$. We will identify all pairs $(a,0)$ with $a in mathbb{R}$ with $mathbb{R}$ itself, and extend the multiplication of pairs to extend the one on the reals.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Jul 7 '18 at 5:46














$begingroup$
Just two different ways of writing the same idea. You are free to do this in Mathematics, so long as you clearly define what you mean, and you would only write such things if there's good justification to do so.
$endgroup$
– Antinous
Jul 7 '18 at 6:13




$begingroup$
Just two different ways of writing the same idea. You are free to do this in Mathematics, so long as you clearly define what you mean, and you would only write such things if there's good justification to do so.
$endgroup$
– Antinous
Jul 7 '18 at 6:13










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















5












$begingroup$

There is a confluence of notation here. The pattern "$a + b i$" could be interpreted in two different ways:




  • As defined by the passage you quoted: this is just a funny way to write $(a,b)$.

  • An arithmetic expression denoting the result of adding $a$ and the product of $b$ and $i$


As it turns out, both of these interpretations mean the same thing if we define $i$ to mean the ordered pair $(0,1)$ and make the complex numbers a real algebra by embedding the real numbers in the complexes by $r mapsto (r,0)$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    0












    $begingroup$

    This is just a definition, and not a proof. In this context, things do not need to "come from somewhere". You can think of it as a simple matter of notation, that is, how you represent things.



    The text is just saying that you can equivalently represent any complex number as an ordered pair of real numbers. In fact, the same procedure is applied to other mathematical objects as well (e.g polynomials and matrices).



    Finally, I would suggest how to look at the first 10 or 11 Chapters of 'Naive Set Theory' from Halmos if you want to get started with understanding mathematical formalism.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$





















      0












      $begingroup$

      You can interpret the equivalente between $(a,b)$ and $a+ib$ in the following sense:



      $(a,b)+(c,d) = (a+c,b+d)$



      $(a+ib)+(c+id)=(a+c) + i(b+d)$ (as adition of polinomials!)



      Do you see whats going on?



      As we have a product in $mathbb{C}$, we have by definition of the product that



      $(a,b)(c,d) = (ac-bd, ad+bc)$



      but we don't have to remember that formula if we remember that $i^2=-1$ and we write



      $(a+ib)(c+id)=ac+aid+ibc+i^2bd = (ac-bd) +i(ad+bc) $ which is the same as $(ac-bd,ad+bc)$ above.



      So we prefer to write $a+ib$ because it allow us to extrapolate usual notions of algebra and remember less stuff.



      Hope it helps.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













        Your Answer





        StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
        return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
        StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
        StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
        });
        });
        }, "mathjax-editing");

        StackExchange.ready(function() {
        var channelOptions = {
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "69"
        };
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
        createEditor();
        });
        }
        else {
        createEditor();
        }
        });

        function createEditor() {
        StackExchange.prepareEditor({
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: true,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: 10,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader: {
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        },
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        });


        }
        });














        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function () {
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2843459%2funderstanding-definition-of-complex-number%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes








        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        5












        $begingroup$

        There is a confluence of notation here. The pattern "$a + b i$" could be interpreted in two different ways:




        • As defined by the passage you quoted: this is just a funny way to write $(a,b)$.

        • An arithmetic expression denoting the result of adding $a$ and the product of $b$ and $i$


        As it turns out, both of these interpretations mean the same thing if we define $i$ to mean the ordered pair $(0,1)$ and make the complex numbers a real algebra by embedding the real numbers in the complexes by $r mapsto (r,0)$.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$


















          5












          $begingroup$

          There is a confluence of notation here. The pattern "$a + b i$" could be interpreted in two different ways:




          • As defined by the passage you quoted: this is just a funny way to write $(a,b)$.

          • An arithmetic expression denoting the result of adding $a$ and the product of $b$ and $i$


          As it turns out, both of these interpretations mean the same thing if we define $i$ to mean the ordered pair $(0,1)$ and make the complex numbers a real algebra by embedding the real numbers in the complexes by $r mapsto (r,0)$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$
















            5












            5








            5





            $begingroup$

            There is a confluence of notation here. The pattern "$a + b i$" could be interpreted in two different ways:




            • As defined by the passage you quoted: this is just a funny way to write $(a,b)$.

            • An arithmetic expression denoting the result of adding $a$ and the product of $b$ and $i$


            As it turns out, both of these interpretations mean the same thing if we define $i$ to mean the ordered pair $(0,1)$ and make the complex numbers a real algebra by embedding the real numbers in the complexes by $r mapsto (r,0)$.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            There is a confluence of notation here. The pattern "$a + b i$" could be interpreted in two different ways:




            • As defined by the passage you quoted: this is just a funny way to write $(a,b)$.

            • An arithmetic expression denoting the result of adding $a$ and the product of $b$ and $i$


            As it turns out, both of these interpretations mean the same thing if we define $i$ to mean the ordered pair $(0,1)$ and make the complex numbers a real algebra by embedding the real numbers in the complexes by $r mapsto (r,0)$.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Jul 7 '18 at 5:58









            HurkylHurkyl

            112k9120262




            112k9120262























                0












                $begingroup$

                This is just a definition, and not a proof. In this context, things do not need to "come from somewhere". You can think of it as a simple matter of notation, that is, how you represent things.



                The text is just saying that you can equivalently represent any complex number as an ordered pair of real numbers. In fact, the same procedure is applied to other mathematical objects as well (e.g polynomials and matrices).



                Finally, I would suggest how to look at the first 10 or 11 Chapters of 'Naive Set Theory' from Halmos if you want to get started with understanding mathematical formalism.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$


















                  0












                  $begingroup$

                  This is just a definition, and not a proof. In this context, things do not need to "come from somewhere". You can think of it as a simple matter of notation, that is, how you represent things.



                  The text is just saying that you can equivalently represent any complex number as an ordered pair of real numbers. In fact, the same procedure is applied to other mathematical objects as well (e.g polynomials and matrices).



                  Finally, I would suggest how to look at the first 10 or 11 Chapters of 'Naive Set Theory' from Halmos if you want to get started with understanding mathematical formalism.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$
















                    0












                    0








                    0





                    $begingroup$

                    This is just a definition, and not a proof. In this context, things do not need to "come from somewhere". You can think of it as a simple matter of notation, that is, how you represent things.



                    The text is just saying that you can equivalently represent any complex number as an ordered pair of real numbers. In fact, the same procedure is applied to other mathematical objects as well (e.g polynomials and matrices).



                    Finally, I would suggest how to look at the first 10 or 11 Chapters of 'Naive Set Theory' from Halmos if you want to get started with understanding mathematical formalism.






                    share|cite|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$



                    This is just a definition, and not a proof. In this context, things do not need to "come from somewhere". You can think of it as a simple matter of notation, that is, how you represent things.



                    The text is just saying that you can equivalently represent any complex number as an ordered pair of real numbers. In fact, the same procedure is applied to other mathematical objects as well (e.g polynomials and matrices).



                    Finally, I would suggest how to look at the first 10 or 11 Chapters of 'Naive Set Theory' from Halmos if you want to get started with understanding mathematical formalism.







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered Jul 7 '18 at 5:40









                    Ariel SerranoniAriel Serranoni

                    3915




                    3915























                        0












                        $begingroup$

                        You can interpret the equivalente between $(a,b)$ and $a+ib$ in the following sense:



                        $(a,b)+(c,d) = (a+c,b+d)$



                        $(a+ib)+(c+id)=(a+c) + i(b+d)$ (as adition of polinomials!)



                        Do you see whats going on?



                        As we have a product in $mathbb{C}$, we have by definition of the product that



                        $(a,b)(c,d) = (ac-bd, ad+bc)$



                        but we don't have to remember that formula if we remember that $i^2=-1$ and we write



                        $(a+ib)(c+id)=ac+aid+ibc+i^2bd = (ac-bd) +i(ad+bc) $ which is the same as $(ac-bd,ad+bc)$ above.



                        So we prefer to write $a+ib$ because it allow us to extrapolate usual notions of algebra and remember less stuff.



                        Hope it helps.






                        share|cite|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$


















                          0












                          $begingroup$

                          You can interpret the equivalente between $(a,b)$ and $a+ib$ in the following sense:



                          $(a,b)+(c,d) = (a+c,b+d)$



                          $(a+ib)+(c+id)=(a+c) + i(b+d)$ (as adition of polinomials!)



                          Do you see whats going on?



                          As we have a product in $mathbb{C}$, we have by definition of the product that



                          $(a,b)(c,d) = (ac-bd, ad+bc)$



                          but we don't have to remember that formula if we remember that $i^2=-1$ and we write



                          $(a+ib)(c+id)=ac+aid+ibc+i^2bd = (ac-bd) +i(ad+bc) $ which is the same as $(ac-bd,ad+bc)$ above.



                          So we prefer to write $a+ib$ because it allow us to extrapolate usual notions of algebra and remember less stuff.



                          Hope it helps.






                          share|cite|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$
















                            0












                            0








                            0





                            $begingroup$

                            You can interpret the equivalente between $(a,b)$ and $a+ib$ in the following sense:



                            $(a,b)+(c,d) = (a+c,b+d)$



                            $(a+ib)+(c+id)=(a+c) + i(b+d)$ (as adition of polinomials!)



                            Do you see whats going on?



                            As we have a product in $mathbb{C}$, we have by definition of the product that



                            $(a,b)(c,d) = (ac-bd, ad+bc)$



                            but we don't have to remember that formula if we remember that $i^2=-1$ and we write



                            $(a+ib)(c+id)=ac+aid+ibc+i^2bd = (ac-bd) +i(ad+bc) $ which is the same as $(ac-bd,ad+bc)$ above.



                            So we prefer to write $a+ib$ because it allow us to extrapolate usual notions of algebra and remember less stuff.



                            Hope it helps.






                            share|cite|improve this answer









                            $endgroup$



                            You can interpret the equivalente between $(a,b)$ and $a+ib$ in the following sense:



                            $(a,b)+(c,d) = (a+c,b+d)$



                            $(a+ib)+(c+id)=(a+c) + i(b+d)$ (as adition of polinomials!)



                            Do you see whats going on?



                            As we have a product in $mathbb{C}$, we have by definition of the product that



                            $(a,b)(c,d) = (ac-bd, ad+bc)$



                            but we don't have to remember that formula if we remember that $i^2=-1$ and we write



                            $(a+ib)(c+id)=ac+aid+ibc+i^2bd = (ac-bd) +i(ad+bc) $ which is the same as $(ac-bd,ad+bc)$ above.



                            So we prefer to write $a+ib$ because it allow us to extrapolate usual notions of algebra and remember less stuff.



                            Hope it helps.







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered Jul 7 '18 at 6:05









                            HeManHeMan

                            858832




                            858832






























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded




















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid …



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function () {
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2843459%2funderstanding-definition-of-complex-number%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                }
                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                -

                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Probability when a professor distributes a quiz and homework assignment to a class of n students.

                                Image
                                0 0 $begingroup$ Need help with this problem. Suppose our lazy professor collects a quiz and a homework assignment from a class of n students one day, then distributes both the quizzes and the homework assignments back to the class in a random fashion for grading. Each student receives one quiz and one homework assignment to grade. (a) What is the probability that every student receives someone else's quiz to grade, and someone else's homework to grade? (b) What is the probability that no student receives both their own quiz and their own homework assignment to grade? In this case, some students may receive their own quiz, and others may receive their own homework assignment. (c) Compute the limiting probability as n approaches infinity in each case. ...
                                Read more

                                Aardman Animations

                                Image
                                Aardman Animations, Ltd. Aardman Animations Tipo privada Atividade Animação em stop-motion , Animação em CGI Fundação 1972 Fundador(es) Peter Lord David Sproxton Sede Bristol, Inglaterra  Reino Unido Proprietário(s) Dreamworks Pessoas-chave Peter Lord David Sproxton Nick Park Divisões Aardman Features Aardman Digital Aardman Commercials Aardman Broadcast Aardman International Aardman Rights Aardman Effects Aardman 3-D Systems Aardman Nathan Love AardBoiled Website oficial aardman.com ...
                                Read more

                                Are they similar matrix

                                Image
                                0 $begingroup$ Do $begin{bmatrix} 0&i&0\0&0&1\0&0&0 end{bmatrix} $ and $begin{bmatrix} 0&0&0\-i&0&0\0&1&0 end{bmatrix} $ are similar.Is this True/false Clearly both are nilpotent and one is conjucate transpose of other but how to know if they are similar.i'm stuck. Please help me linear-algebra vector-spaces eigenvalues-eigenvectors generalizedeigenvector share | cite | improve this question edited Dec 10 '18 at 6:38 Vasanth Kris asked Dec 10 '18 at 6:19 ...
                                Read more