Complex Numbers (Book)

Blog Calendar

◄ June ► 2022
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30
Archive				RSS

About This Author

Contact Me

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.

http://www.ddewey.net/mandelbrot/

Signature for Honorable Mentions in 2018 Quill Awards

A signature for exclusive use of winners at the 2019 Quill Awards

Signature for those who have won a Quill Award at the 2020 Quill Awards

Show Recent Comments

June 16, 2022 at 12:01am

#1033883

That's Reasonable

A fifth entry for "Journalistic Intentions"

[18+]

Reasonable Authority Figure

There's usually a reason, in writing, to have the authority figure be unreasonable. It creates conflict. You get one that actually listens, and the conflict has to come from somewhere else, perhaps the other main characters or, as the trope page suggests, an advisor.

But, while reading the description of this trope, my mind went to Star Trek.

This is not surprising; as you all know, I've been a Trek fan all my life. It's not precisely the definition of the trope -- for that, your main characters would have to be non-authority figures so the authority figures (bridge crew or whatever) would be shown as reasonable or not. This is, in fact, what actually happens in the Lower Decks comedy-focused animated Trek series, but that's only been going on for two years, while the franchise in general has been around for well over 50, and apart from that one series, it always focuses on the leaders themselves.

The link to live-action TV

from the trope page kind of acknowledges this, presenting examples of reasonable admirals that fit the trope. And yet, in their section on Doctor Who (another long-running franchise that I've seen every episode of), they mention that The Doctor is a RAF.

On a starship, there can be no greater authority figure than the Captain. Even when there's an admiral on board, usually to provide a foil for said captain, the captain is absolutely in charge of his or her ship. So to be complete, any discussion of a RAF. must consider whether the main character is, in fact, a RAF.

There is, and probably always will be, a long-running argument in Trek fandom about who's the better captain: Kirk, or Picard. (Trick question; it's obviously Sisko.) But I submit that a new contender has arisen in the arena: Captain Christopher Pike. And that's precisely because he is the most R of all RAFs. And that's without being a Gary Stu.

Gary Stu is one of the names for a male Mary Sue, which is a trope that itself arose from Star Trek fandom. For those who don't know, early on in the history of Star Trek, a lot of fanfiction got written. This is no different from today, but back then, things were maybe a little more unfocused, what with lack of internet and only one show to pull from. It describes, roughly, a character with no flaws, perhaps even someone nothing bad ever happens to in the story; it's usually a writer inserting themselves into the narrative for wish-fulfillment purposes. The term "Mary Sue" itself is, like many neologisms, often abused and sometimes has misogynistic overtones, implying that the qualities we look for in a male protagonist are unwelcome in a female one ("What do you call a male Mary Sue? A protagonist.")

All of which is to say that Pike isn't a Mary Sue, or a Gary Stu, or whatever. He has flaws and personality traits other than "always being right" (and the best tagline in all of Trek). But he's definitely a RAF

As an aside, for anyone not up to date on all the recent Star Trek shows, Strange New Worlds chronicles the Enterprise's journeys before Kirk took over. It's based on the original pilot, unaired on its own and only shown in a two-part episode of the original series as flashbacks. Pike also figures prominently in the Abrams revised-timeline movies, but in this series, we're back in something resembling the original timeline (which, I will argue endlessly to anyone bored or captive enough to listen, has been irrevocably altered by repeated time-travel fuckery in various Trek series, so shut the hell up about continuity errors already).

Eh, but I've rambled on long enough, and I don't want to point to too many examples lest I spoil the series for someone. The point is that I think it's absolutely a legitimate version of the RAF trope to make the main character one. It can be more fun if their subordinates are incompetent, but of course that rarely happens in Star Trek, because it's basically competence porn.

6 Like • Comment • View 2 comments

© 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.