Skip to content

Comment on Why don't we define “imaginary” numbers for every “impossibility”? (2012)parent

Comments

Honestly saying you can't have a number 1/0 because it breaks the ring axioms seems exactly analogous to saying 0 can't exist because it breaks the group axioms for multiplication on the non-zero reals. Is ring multiplication "not really multiplication" because it doesn't satisfy group axioms? That doesn't seem consistent with normal usage to me, but you could imagine a pedantic student coming out of their first group theory course and trying to make that argument.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.