Dude just look up ‘dual numbers’ they do exactly what you want, square a number it equals zero and WOW! it actually doesn’t break any rules for complex analysis!
@@log_menus_1 what u mean u just add them like in dual numbers u have an object epsilon^2=0 with epsilon≠0 so like 1+epsilon doesnt simplify further but epsilon+epsilon is just 2*epsilon like ud expect
I don't know what it means when the word virtual is placed before a mathematical term, but what i do know, is when it is placed in front of a word, it takes Algebra concepts to a more difficult and complicated level. So, may i please request a RUclips video about virtual complex numbers of the notation a+bi in the virtual Complex Plane? I REALLY want to see what i can learn from that topic!!
I have a question. If j + j = 0, then if we still have distributivity j+j = 1*j + 1*j = (1+1)*j = 2*j, so 2*j = 0. However if 2*j = 0, it should follow (if multiplication is associative) that j = 1*j = (1/2 * 2)j = 1/2 (2*j) = 1/2 * 0 = 0. Clearly since j is not 0 something here must fail. Is it distributivity or is it associativity? The alternative is of course that 2j is not 0, which can also hold and you can just redo what you wrote with (x-j) instead of (x+j)
Well bro nothing fails if something is not applied at all we can't use the properties of associativity and distributivity of multiplication all the time in dealing with logarithmic equations so here also the properties are not applied and sorry for overlooking your true query.
Hello, you have it right. This is the new definition of "ln" and "e" with duality, I was talking about to you in messenger and was describing to you. If you dont know graph for that for some long time (next year) i can show you and what it means, what it describes, how it operates, and how the builded structure looks geometricaly. But you are progressing a quite quick at your own. Exploring is the thing, i dont want to take from anyone. And it is more valuable, than the structure itself or describing it. The structure is here all around us and will be. Exploring is unique. There are few people in comments in yours videos, they are also very close to see full structure and full principles. And when you and them realize how it looks and it fits all math-phys you will be supprrised how simple it is. And what complexity it creates. And the question will change from "how to describe the principle?" (because you will see it all fits) to question "why? and what is the meaning? ". And you will realize that exploring is one of the real ultimate values for the structure. I was writing this to you in messenger in this meaning. Nice year for everyone.
Hey bro I liked your efforts and they are nice, really and I also started working on it but I am a novice so I am having a tuff time especially with this property of virtual numbers I. E. j^2 = 0,it means(ln(-1))^2 = 0 Well I understood why this result is true but could you please tell me whether my this view is right or wrong, see this, if (ln(-1))^2=0, so taking sqrt of both sides of the equation we get ln(-1)=0 this means -1=e^0, which contradicts the solution e^0=1. Another fact is that the j=iπ so this creates more confusion so tell me where am I wrong, please its a humble request to you.
Here I discussed why we get j² = 0 ruclips.net/video/HhQhFE9LF0g/видео.html But this may not true, due to logarithmic operations.. If Euler identity is true then j = πe^(j/2) Here three transcendental numbers j,π,e
you need to subsitute x=-j for it to work also why use j if you can use any number, like 1, and then subsitute x=-1 also if j+j=0 then 2j=0, then dividing both sides by 2 gives j=0
We can use any number if power series (x-a) at x = a But I have used virtual power series x+j , x = j Also you can use x-j , series as well , because j-j is also add zeros... and if j+j = 0 this doesn't mean j is 0.. For example in complex numbers, i⁴ = 1 this doesn't mean i=1
Again the set of 'virtual numbers' is useless af and it just complicates the calculations you are just simply wrong from the beggining and I feel this shit (especially seeing channel profile logo) will end up as crypto shit as always
If you believe my content, including the Virtual Numbers System or Singularity Numbers System, is useless or not worth your time, this video might not be for you. My goal isn’t to stick rigidly to traditional rules or methods but to encourage thinking differently, even if it means making mistakes. Mistakes are opportunities to learn and grow, and if we're wrong, we’ll fix it together. These concepts may seem flawed or unconventional now because they are new, but that’s the beauty of innovation - they can evolve and improve as we explore them further. Instead of focusing on criticism, let’s work on refining and improving these ideas collectively. If I’ve made errors in applying Virtual Numbers, I’m open to revisiting and correcting them. Together, we can push the boundaries of understanding and create something meaningful.
@log_menus_1 they are not unconventional they are just simply stupid and looking at your comments you do not want to improve them because you are just defending them in weird way. And again just give me one reason why these numbers should be specially classified because I do not even see it. As a whole numeric set it is as large as complex one so it does not introduce anything new rather than one stupid letter. And you can see how from my perspective it just looks like cheap and easy to make crypto scam
@@log_menus_1 problem is you can’t create a new ideas without following the old ones especially for a subject like mathematics which uses foundations of truth and logic to get from one thing to another. You can’t just say natural logs now input negative real numbers and except the same properties for positive real numbers. You have assumed this to be true and have gotten to the result of j^2=0 which isn’t true. No one will listen to you or consider your ideas if they don’t adhere to common and basic mathematical rules such as analysis. You can explore new ideas yes, but it’s never going to be correct given you assumed (ln(-1))^2=0. You can’t just say you extended the domain, that’s not how math works. You can easily encourage people to think differently because many people are very good at that without using flawed mathematics. The biggest problem I have with your channel is you present these ideas as true without any detail or consideration. Your videos are not long at all meaning it just seems like you don’t even know what you are talking about or you really don’t care. Although I don’t see much problems in this video specifically as of right now, but some of your previous ones make me cringe so much. If you really care about your ideas, then you would make videos way longer than 3 minutes with more detailed derivations, examples and diagrams. I’m not expecting 3blue1brown levels of content but you can’t just expect me to believe you really care about this topic without putting more work in. Just seems like you want views fast without consideration of spreading disinformation. By all means I don’t hate you so don’t take my comments as personal attacks, I just don’t like your content. I’d actually rather help you make math content than make this.
@@log_menus_1no you did not prove anything. You said "if we write the function this way, this happen", but you did not prove "it is possible to write the function this way.". f(x)=1/x is an example of a function which does not have a Taylor expansion.
i still dont understand what the applications of virtual numbers could possibly be. you have given formulas using virtual numbers hut you have yet to elaborate on a field or problem that virtual numbers could help solve
In upcoming videos, I will explore how the Virtual Numbers System can be applied to the Zeta Function, with a particular focus on testing its behavior with the non-trivial zeros of the function. According to Riemann, all non-trivial zeros lie on the critical strip, where s = r + (1/2)i. However, in the Virtual Numbers System, this conjecture is reimagined as: s = r + (1/2)e^(j/2) Or s = r + bj And for now I don't know what b should be for virtual critical strip I will delve deeper into this revised conjecture and its implications in future videos. Stay tuned!
![The most beautiful equation in math, explained visually [Euler’s Formula]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/f8CXG7dS-D0/mqdefault.jpg)
![The most beautiful equation in math, explained visually [Euler’s Formula]](/img/tr.png)
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Dude just look up ‘dual numbers’ they do exactly what you want, square a number it equals zero and WOW! it actually doesn’t break any rules for complex analysis!
What if we add them ?
@@log_menus_1 what u mean u just add them
like in dual numbers u have an object epsilon^2=0 with epsilon≠0
so like 1+epsilon doesnt simplify further
but epsilon+epsilon is just 2*epsilon like ud expect
I don't know what it means when the word virtual is placed before a mathematical term, but what i do know, is when it is placed in front of a word, it takes Algebra concepts to a more difficult and complicated level. So, may i please request a RUclips video about virtual complex numbers of the notation a+bi in the virtual Complex Plane? I REALLY want to see what i can learn from that topic!!
Isn't *ln(-1) = iπ+k2π* were k is a intiger
In complex numbers system
yes, he is using incorrect maths
I have a question. If j + j = 0, then if we still have distributivity j+j = 1*j + 1*j = (1+1)*j = 2*j, so 2*j = 0.
However if 2*j = 0, it should follow (if multiplication is associative) that j = 1*j = (1/2 * 2)j = 1/2 (2*j) = 1/2 * 0 = 0.
Clearly since j is not 0 something here must fail. Is it distributivity or is it associativity?
The alternative is of course that 2j is not 0, which can also hold and you can just redo what you wrote with (x-j) instead of (x+j)
j is logarithmic numbers, not like real , addition and subtraction are different from real numbers, so in logarithmic sense 2j = 0 is true
@log_menus_1 so which fails, distributivity or associativity?
Actually we need to solve the problem in logarithmic form so 2j== 2*ln(-1) so it is ln(-1^2)=ln(1)=0 H. P
@@naveengautam1238 read what I wrote. Something has to fail, either associativity or distributivity
Well bro nothing fails if something is not applied at all we can't use the properties of associativity and distributivity of multiplication all the time in dealing with logarithmic equations so here also the properties are not applied and sorry for overlooking your true query.
Hello, you have it right. This is the new definition of "ln" and "e" with duality, I was talking about to you in messenger and was describing to you. If you dont know graph for that for some long time (next year) i can show you and what it means, what it describes, how it operates, and how the builded structure looks geometricaly. But you are progressing a quite quick at your own. Exploring is the thing, i dont want to take from anyone. And it is more valuable, than the structure itself or describing it. The structure is here all around us and will be. Exploring is unique. There are few people in comments in yours videos, they are also very close to see full structure and full principles. And when you and them realize how it looks and it fits all math-phys you will be supprrised how simple it is. And what complexity it creates. And the question will change from "how to describe the principle?" (because you will see it all fits) to question "why? and what is the meaning? ". And you will realize that exploring is one of the real ultimate values for the structure. I was writing this to you in messenger in this meaning. Nice year for everyone.
Let's discuss on messenger 🙂
Hey bro I liked your efforts and they are nice, really and I also started working on it but I am a novice so I am having a tuff time especially with this property of virtual numbers I. E. j^2 = 0,it means(ln(-1))^2 = 0 Well I understood why this result is true but could you please tell me whether my this view is right or wrong, see this, if (ln(-1))^2=0, so taking sqrt of both sides of the equation we get ln(-1)=0 this means -1=e^0, which contradicts the solution e^0=1. Another fact is that the j=iπ so this creates more confusion so tell me where am I wrong, please its a humble request to you.
Here I discussed why we get j² = 0
ruclips.net/video/HhQhFE9LF0g/видео.html
But this may not true, due to logarithmic operations..
If Euler identity is true then
j = πe^(j/2)
Here three transcendental numbers j,π,e
@@log_menus_1if j is a virtual number how can it also be transcendental? transcendental numbers are part of the real number system.
you need to subsitute x=-j for it to work
also why use j if you can use any number, like 1, and then subsitute x=-1
also if j+j=0 then 2j=0, then dividing both sides by 2 gives j=0
We can use any number if power series (x-a) at x = a
But I have used virtual power series x+j , x = j
Also you can use x-j , series as well , because j-j is also add zeros...
and if j+j = 0 this doesn't mean j is 0..
For example in complex numbers, i⁴ = 1 this doesn't mean i=1
@@log_menus_1 bro you just suck at math at this point lol. The multiplication and powering are teo diffrent things lol.
j is an isomorph of i
it is not
Again the set of 'virtual numbers' is useless af and it just complicates the calculations you are just simply wrong from the beggining and I feel this shit (especially seeing channel profile logo) will end up as crypto shit as always
If you believe my content, including the Virtual Numbers System or Singularity Numbers System, is useless or not worth your time, this video might not be for you.
My goal isn’t to stick rigidly to traditional rules or methods but to encourage thinking differently, even if it means making mistakes. Mistakes are opportunities to learn and grow, and if we're wrong, we’ll fix it together.
These concepts may seem flawed or unconventional now because they are new, but that’s the beauty of innovation - they can evolve and improve as we explore them further.
Instead of focusing on criticism, let’s work on refining and improving these ideas collectively. If I’ve made errors in applying Virtual Numbers, I’m open to revisiting and correcting them.
Together, we can push the boundaries of understanding and create something meaningful.
@log_menus_1 they are not unconventional they are just simply stupid and looking at your comments you do not want to improve them because you are just defending them in weird way. And again just give me one reason why these numbers should be specially classified because I do not even see it. As a whole numeric set it is as large as complex one so it does not introduce anything new rather than one stupid letter. And you can see how from my perspective it just looks like cheap and easy to make crypto scam
@@log_menus_1 problem is you can’t create a new ideas without following the old ones especially for a subject like mathematics which uses foundations of truth and logic to get from one thing to another. You can’t just say natural logs now input negative real numbers and except the same properties for positive real numbers. You have assumed this to be true and have gotten to the result of j^2=0 which isn’t true. No one will listen to you or consider your ideas if they don’t adhere to common and basic mathematical rules such as analysis. You can explore new ideas yes, but it’s never going to be correct given you assumed (ln(-1))^2=0. You can’t just say you extended the domain, that’s not how math works. You can easily encourage people to think differently because many people are very good at that without using flawed mathematics.
The biggest problem I have with your channel is you present these ideas as true without any detail or consideration. Your videos are not long at all meaning it just seems like you don’t even know what you are talking about or you really don’t care. Although I don’t see much problems in this video specifically as of right now, but some of your previous ones make me cringe so much. If you really care about your ideas, then you would make videos way longer than 3 minutes with more detailed derivations, examples and diagrams. I’m not expecting 3blue1brown levels of content but you can’t just expect me to believe you really care about this topic without putting more work in. Just seems like you want views fast without consideration of spreading disinformation.
By all means I don’t hate you so don’t take my comments as personal attacks, I just don’t like your content. I’d actually rather help you make math content than make this.
You didn’t prove that such an expansion exist however, nor that a function is derivable for x=j
I proved using virtual power series
@@log_menus_1no you did not prove anything. You said "if we write the function this way, this happen", but you did not prove "it is possible to write the function this way.". f(x)=1/x is an example of a function which does not have a Taylor expansion.
i still dont understand what the applications of virtual numbers could possibly be. you have given formulas using virtual numbers hut you have yet to elaborate on a field or problem that virtual numbers could help solve
In upcoming videos, I will explore how the Virtual Numbers System can be applied to the Zeta Function, with a particular focus on testing its behavior with the non-trivial zeros of the function.
According to Riemann, all non-trivial zeros lie on the critical strip, where s = r + (1/2)i.
However, in the Virtual Numbers System, this conjecture is reimagined as:
s = r + (1/2)e^(j/2)
Or
s = r + bj
And for now I don't know what b should be for virtual critical strip
I will delve deeper into this revised conjecture and its implications in future videos. Stay tuned!
why virtual numbers are now an important concept in math?
@@ISuckAtBedwarsLMAO they’re not he made them up