There have been a number of Scientific discoveries that seemed to be purely scientific curiosities that later turned out to be incredibly useful. Hertz famously commented about the discovery of radio waves: “I do not think that the wireless waves I have discovered will have any practical application.”

Are there examples like this in math as well? What is the most interesting “pure math” discovery that proved to be useful in solving a real-world problem?

  • JackbyDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    It’s imaginary numbers. Full stop. No debate about it. The idea of them is so wild that they were literally named imaginary numbers to demonstrate how silly they were, and yet they can be used to describe real things in nature.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      I mean, quaternions are the weirder version of complex numbers, and they’re used for calculating 3D rotations in a lot of production code.

      There’s also the octonions and (much inferior) Clifford algebras beyond that, but I don’t know about applications.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          Would that make it less true? Complex numbers can be seen as a weird subgroup of the 2x2 real matrices. (And you can “stack” the two representations to get 4x4 real quaternions)

          Furthermore, octonions are non-associative, and so can’t be a subgroup of anything (although you can do a similar thing using an alternate matrix multiplication rule). They still show up in a lot of the same pure math contexts, though.

    • alt_xa_23@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I’m studying EE in university, and have been surprised by just how much imaginary numbers are used

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        From what I’ve seen that’s one example where you could totally just use trig and pairs of numbers, though. I might be missing something, because I’m not an electrical engineer.

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 hours ago

            In quantum mechanics, there are times you divide two different complex numbers, and complex multiplication/division is the thing two real numbers can’t really replicate. That’s how the Bloch 2-sphere in 3D space is constructed from two complex dimensions (which maps to 4 real ones).

            It’s peripheral, though. Nothing in the guts of the theory needs it AFAIK - the Bloch sphere doesn’t generalise much and is more of a visualisation. So, jury’s still out on if it’s us or if it’s nature that likes seeing it that way.

      • underscores@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        EE is absolutely fascinating for applications of calculus in general.

        I didn’t give a shit about calculus and then EE just kept blowing my mind.

    • chunes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I don’t really get 'em. It seems like people often use them as “a pair of numbers.” So why not just use a pair of numbers then?

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        They also have a defined multiplication operation consistent with how it works on ordinary numbers. And it’s not just multiplying each number separately.

        A lot of math works better on them. For example, all n-degree polynomials have exactly n roots, and all smooth complex functions have a polynomial approximation at every point. Neither is true on the reals.

        Quantum mechanics could possibly work with pairs of real numbers, but it would be unclear what each one means on their own. Treating a probability amplitude as a single number is more satisfying in a lot of ways.

        They don’t exist is still a position you could take, but so is the opposite.

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        I totally get your point, and sometimes it seems like that. Why not just use a coordinate system? Because in some applications the complex roots of equations is relevant.

        If you square an imaginary number, it’s no longer an imaginary number. Now it’s a real number! That’s not something you can accomplish with something like a pair of numbers alone.

      • justastranger@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Because the second number has special rules and a unit. It’s not just a pair of numbers, though it can be represented through a pair of numbers (really helpful for computing).