About This Author
Come closer.
Complex Numbers
Complex Numbers

A complex number is expressed in the standard form a + bi, where a and b are real numbers and i is defined by i^2 = -1 (that is, i is the square root of -1). For example, 3 + 2i is a complex number.

The bi term is often referred to as an imaginary number (though this may be misleading, as it is no more "imaginary" than the symbolic abstractions we know as the "real" numbers). Thus, every complex number has a real part, a, and an imaginary part, bi.

Complex numbers are often represented on a graph known as the "complex plane," where the horizontal axis represents the infinity of real numbers, and the vertical axis represents the infinity of imaginary numbers. Thus, each complex number has a unique representation on the complex plane: some closer to real; others, more imaginary. If a = b, the number is equal parts real and imaginary.

Very simple transformations applied to numbers in the complex plane can lead to fractal structures of enormous intricacy and astonishing beauty.




Merit Badge in Quill Award [Click For More Info] Congratulations on winning Best Blog in the 2021 edition of [Link To Item #quills] !
Merit Badge in Quill Award [Click For More Info] Congratulations on winning the 2019 Quill Award for Best Blog for [Link To Item #1196512] . This award is proudly sponsored by the blogging consortium including [Link To Item #30dbc] , [Link To Item #blogcity] , [Link To Item #bcof] and [Link To Item #1953629] . *^*Delight*^* For more information, see [Link To Item #quills] . Merit Badge in Quill Award [Click For More Info] Congratulations on winning the 2020 Quill Award for Best Blog for [Link To Item #1196512] . *^*Smile*^* This award is sponsored by the blogging consortium including [Link To Item #30dbc] , [Link To Item #blogcity] , [Link To Item #bcof] and [Link To Item #1953629] . For more information, see [Link To Item #quills] .
Merit Badge in Quill Award 2 [Click For More Info] 2022 Quill Award - Best Blog - [Link To Item #1196512] . Congratulations!!! Merit Badge in Quill Award 2 [Click For More Info] Congratulations! 2022 Quill Award Winner - Best in Genre: Opinion *^*Trophyg*^* [Link To Item #1196512] Merit Badge in Quill Award 2 [Click For More Info] Congratulations!! 2023 Quill Award Winner - Best in Genre - Opinion *^*Trophyg*^* [Link To Item #1196512]
Merit Badge in 30DBC Winner [Click For More Info] Congratulations on winning the Jan. 2019 [Link To Item #30dbc] !! Merit Badge in 30DBC Winner [Click For More Info] Congratulations on taking First Place in the May 2019 edition of the [Link To Item #30DBC] ! Thanks for entertaining us all month long! Merit Badge in 30DBC Winner [Click For More Info] Congratulations on winning the September 2019 round of the [Link To Item #30dbc] !!
Merit Badge in 30DBC Winner [Click For More Info] Congratulations on winning the September 2020 round of the [Link To Item #30dbc] !! Fine job! Merit Badge in 30DBC Winner [Click For More Info] Congrats on winning 1st Place in the January 2021 [Link To Item #30dbc] !! Well done! Merit Badge in 30DBC Winner [Click For More Info] Congratulations on winning the May 2021 [Link To Item #30DBC] !! Well done! Merit Badge in 30DBC Winner [Click For More Info] Congrats on winning the November 2021 [Link To Item #30dbc] !! Great job!
Merit Badge in Blogging [Click For More Info] Congratulations on winning an honorable mention for Best Blog at the 2018 Quill Awards for [Link To Item #1196512] . *^*Smile*^* This award was sponsored by the blogging consortium including [Link To Item #30dbc] , [Link To Item #blogcity] , [Link To Item #bcof] and [Link To Item #1953629] . For more details, see [Link To Item #quills] . Merit Badge in Blogging [Click For More Info] Congratulations on your Second Place win in the January 2020 Round of the [Link To Item #30dbc] ! Blog On! *^*Quill*^* Merit Badge in Blogging [Click For More Info] Congratulations on your second place win in the May 2020 Official Round of the [Link To Item #30dbc] ! Blog on! Merit Badge in Blogging [Click For More Info] Congratulations on your second place win in the July 2020 [Link To Item #30dbc] ! Merit Badge in Blogging [Click For More Info] Congratulations on your Second Place win in the Official November 2020 round of the [Link To Item #30dbc] !
Merit Badge in Highly Recommended [Click For More Info] I highly recommend your blog. Merit Badge in Opinion [Click For More Info] For diving into the prompts for Journalistic Intentions- thanks for joining the fun! Merit Badge in High Five [Click For More Info] For your inventive entries in [Link To Item #2213121] ! Thanks for the great read! Merit Badge in Enlightening [Click For More Info] For winning 3rd Place in [Link To Item #2213121] . Congratulations!
Merit Badge in Quarks Bar [Click For More Info] For your awesome Klingon Bloodwine recipe from [Link to Book Entry #1016079] that deserves to be on the topmost shelf at Quark's.
Signature for Honorable Mentions in 2018 Quill AwardsA signature for exclusive use of winners at the 2019 Quill AwardsSignature for those who have won a Quill Award at the 2020 Quill Awards
For quill 2021 winnersQuill Winner Signature 20222023 Quill Winner



April 12, 2020 at 12:20am
April 12, 2020 at 12:20am
#980839
Today's article is a couple of years old now, but from what I've seen in the news, it's relevant to our current situation.

https://theconversation.com/the-thinking-error-at-the-root-of-science-denial-960...

The thinking error at the root of science denial


Currently, there are three important issues on which there is scientific consensus but controversy among laypeople: climate change, biological evolution and childhood vaccination.

Sigh. Four, now. I just saw something today that indicated there's a great deal of overlap between those who deny climate change and those who ignore social distancing guidelines.

This widespread rejection of scientific findings presents a perplexing puzzle to those of us who value an evidence-based approach to knowledge and policy.

I'm the first to admit that science isn't perfect -- it has a history of false starts, wrong turns, and outright reversals. The one I keep going back to is research on the benefits, or harm, associated with eggs in one's diet. In my lifetime, eggs have switched from good to bad and back again at least four times, probably more; I've lost count.

The problem isn't that science isn't perfect, though. The problem, apparently, is that people want something to be perfect and won't settle for less.

Spectrums are sometimes split in very asymmetric ways, with one-half of the binary much larger than the other. For example, perfectionists categorize their work as either perfect or unsatisfactory; good and very good outcomes are lumped together with poor ones in the unsatisfactory category.

In the early days of streaming Netflix, they had a 5-star system for rating their movies / shows, much like we do here on WDC. It allowed for nuance. Maybe there's something you like about a particular movie and something you dislike, so you gave it three stars. Some years ago, they switched to the very Roman thumbs system. Either the gladiator (or Gladiator, in the case of Netflix) lives, or he dies. There's no in-between, no room for mixed feelings.

At that point, I quit rating shows on Netflix. In fairness, I blame Siskel and Ebert from when there was a Siskel and Ebert. But that just goes to show: I don't think in binary; I can understand, sort of, why they did it, and still refuse to participate.

This sort of thing has bothered me for a long time. I've known people who really had this binary system in their own heads. To them, everything, to paraphrase the great sages Beavis and Butthead, either sucks, or it's cool. There's no in-between.

In my observations, I see science deniers engage in dichotomous thinking about truth claims. In evaluating the evidence for a hypothesis or theory, they divide the spectrum of possibilities into two unequal parts: perfect certainty and inconclusive controversy. Any bit of data that does not support a theory is misunderstood to mean that the formulation is fundamentally in doubt, regardless of the amount of supportive evidence.

Whereas, as I've noted before, I can never be 100% certain about anything. I give the sun a very close to 100% chance of rising tomorrow, but hey, you never know. Very close isn't absolute.

There is no ‘proof’ in science

In my view, science deniers misapply the concept of “proof.”

I can't stress this point enough. I agree, with a high level of certainty.

Deniers exploit the distinction between proof and compelling evidence by categorizing empirically well-supported ideas as “unproven.” Such statements are technically correct but extremely misleading, because there are no proven ideas in science, and evidence-based ideas are the best guides for action we have.

They take this even further, I think, into the realm of "what makes experts any better at this than I am?" In politics, perhaps, your opinion is just as valuable as anyone's; our whole political system is founded on that hypothesis. Science doesn't work that way. Someone who's studied, say, the inner workings of a cell and how a virus attacks it, is going to know more about covfefe-19 than someone who's studied auto repair.

I have observed deniers use a three-step strategy to mislead the scientifically unsophisticated. First, they cite areas of uncertainty or controversy, no matter how minor, within the body of research that invalidates their desired course of action. Second, they categorize the overall scientific status of that body of research as uncertain and controversial. Finally, deniers advocate proceeding as if the research did not exist.

And there is always uncertainty, as I've noted above. Additionally, knowledge gets refined over time. To pick a less controversial field, consider physics. Newton developed a theory of gravity that predicted, to a high degree of accuracy, the orbits of planets. Astronomers used this theory, combined with observations of the seventh planet (it shall remain nameless to forestall bad puns), to predict where the eighth planet should be, and behold, Neptune was discovered, right where the theory predicted.

And yet, it wasn't perfect. They found small discrepancies in the orbit of Mercury. It took Einstein to figure that out, and his equations refined - not overturned, but refined - Newton's. There is some evidence that they might need to refine Einstein's theories as well. And yet, when it comes to our everyday lives, and practical engineering of, say, bridges and buildings, Newton's equations are all you need.

I think it's a very human characteristic to want certainty. The danger lies in assuming that, since we can't have it, then everything is equally uncertain.


© Copyright 2024 Waltz en France (UN: cathartes02 at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Waltz en France has granted InkSpot.Com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work.
... powered by: Writing.Com
Online Writing Portfolio * Creative Writing Online