On Complex Numbers XVI

"When the formulas admit of intelligible interpretation, they are accessions to knowledge; but independently of their interpretation they are invaluable as symbolical expressions of thought. But the most noted instance is the symbol called the impossible or imaginary, known also as the square root of minus one, and which, from a shadow of meaning attached to it, may be more definitely distinguished as the symbol of semi-inversion. This symbol is restricted to a precise signification as the representative of perpendicularity in quaternions, and this wonderful algebra of space is intimately dependent upon the special use of the symbol for its symmetry, elegance, and power."  (Benjamin Peirce, "On the Uses and Transformations of Linear Algebra", 1875)

 "√-1 is take for granted today. No serious mathematician would deny that it is a number. Yet it took centuries for √-1 to be officially admitted to the pantheon of numbers. For almost three centuries, it was controversial; mathematicians didn't know what to make of it; many of them worked with it successfully without admitting its existence. […] Primarily for cognitive reasons. Mathematicians simply could not make it fit their idea of what a number was supposed to be. A number was supposed to be a magnitude. √-1 is not a magnitude comparable to the magnitudes of real numbers. No tree can be √-1 units high. You cannot owe someone √-1 dollars. Numbers were supposed to be linearly ordered. √-1 is not linearly ordered with respect to other numbers." (George Lakoff & Rafael E Nuñez, "Where Mathematics Come From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being, 2000)

"From a formal perspective, much about complex numbers and arithmetic seems arbitrary. From a purely algebraic point of view, i arises as a solution to the equation x^2+1=0. There is nothing geometric about this - no complex plane at all. Yet in the complex plane, the i-axis is 90° from the x-axis. Why? Complex numbers in the complex plane add like vectors. Why? Complex numbers have a weird rule of multiplication […]" (George Lakoff & Rafael E Nuñez, "Where Mathematics Come From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being, 2000)

"[…] i is not a real number-not ordered anywhere relative to the real numbers! In other words, it does not even have the central property of ‘numbers’, indicating a magnitude that can be linearly compared to all other magnitudes. You can see why i has been called imaginary. It has almost none of the properties of the small natural numbers-not subitizability, not groupability, and not even relative magnitude. If i is to be a number, it is a number only by virtue of closure and the laws of arithmetic." (George Lakoff & Rafael E Nuñez, "Where Mathematics Come From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being, 2000)

"The complex plane is just the 90° rotation plane-the rotation plane with the structure imposed by the 90° Rotation metaphor added to it. Multiplication by i is 'just' rotation by 90°. This is not arbitrary; it makes sense. Multiplication by-1 is rotation by 180°. A rotation of 180° is the result of two 90° rotations. Since i times i is -1, it makes sense that multiplication by i should be a rotation by 90°, since two of them yield a rotation by 180°, which is multiplication by -1." (George Lakoff & Rafael E Nuñez, "Where Mathematics Come From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being, 2000)

"Negative numbers posed some of the same quandaries that the imaginary numbers did to Renaissance mathematicians - they didn’t seem to correspond to quantities associated with physical objects or geometrical figures. But they proved less conceptually challenging than the imaginaries. For instance, negative numbers can be thought of as monetary debts, providing a readily grasped way to make sense of them." (David Stipp, "A Most Elegant Equation: Euler's Formula and the Beauty of Mathematics", 2017)

"Raising e to an imaginary-number power can be pictured as a rotation operation in the complex plane. Applying this interpretation to e raised to the 'i times π' power means that Euler’s formula can be pictured in geometric terms as modeling a half-circle rotation." (David Stipp, "A Most Elegant Equation: Euler's Formula and the Beauty of Mathematics", 2017)

"The association of multiplication with vector rotation was one of the geometric interpretation's most important elements because it decisively connected the imaginaries with rotary motion. As we'll see, that was a big deal." (David Stipp, "A Most Elegant Equation: Euler's Formula and the Beauty of Mathematics", 2017)

"The fact that multiplying positive 4i times positive 4i yields negative 16 seems like saying that the friend of my friend is my enemy. Which in turn suggests that bad things would happen if i and its offspring were granted citizenship in the number world. Unlike real numbers, which always feel friendly toward the friends of their friends, the i-things would plainly be subject to insane fits of jealousy, causing them to treat numbers that cozy up to their friends as threats. That might cause a general breakdown of numerical civility." (David Stipp, "A Most Elegant Equation: Euler's Formula and the Beauty of Mathematics", 2017)

"Basis real and imaginary numbers have eternal and necessary reality. Complex numbers do not. They are temporal and contingent in the sense that for complex numbers to exist, we first have to carry out an operation: adding basis real and imaginary numbers together. Complex numbers therefore do not exist in their own right. They are constructed. They are derived. Symmetry breaking is exactly where constructed numbers come into existence. The very act of adding a sine wave to a cosine wave is the sufficient condition to create a broken symmetry: a complex number. The 'Big Bang', mathematically, is simply where a perfect array of basis sine and cosine waves start entering into linear combinations, creating a chain reaction, an 'explosion', of complex numbers - which corresponds to the 'physical' universe." (Thomas Stark, "God Is Mathematics: The Proofs of the Eternal Existence of Mathematics", 2018)

On Complex Numbers II

“I have obtained these values by a singular analogy based on the passages from the real to the imaginary, passages that can be considered as a means of discovery.” (Pierre-Simon Laplace)

“I did not understand how such a quantity could be real, when imaginary or impossible numbers were used to express it.” (Gottfried W Leibniz) 

“But it is just that the Roots of Equations should be often impossible (complex), lest they should exhibit the cases of Problems that are impossible as if they were possible." (Isaac Newton, “Universal Mathematic” 2nd Ed., 1728)

"Complete knowledge of the nature of an analytic function must also include insight into its behavior for imaginary values of the arguments. Often the latter is indispensable even for a proper appreciation of the behavior of the function for real arguments. It is therefore essential that the original determination of the function concept be broadened to a domain of magnitudes which includes both the real and the imaginary quantities, on an equal footing, under the single designation complex numbers." (Carl F Gauss, cca. 1831)

“[…] such numbers, which by their natures are impossible, are ordinarily called imaginary or fanciful numbers, because they exist only in the imagination.”  (Leohnard Euler, 1732)

“We completely repudiate the symbol √-1, abandoning it without regret because we do not know what this alleged symbolism signifies nor what meaning to give to it.” (Augustin-Louis Cauchy, 1847)

“Analysis […] would lose immensely in beauty and balance and would be forced to add very hampering restrictions to truths which would hold generally otherwise, if […] imaginary quantities were to be neglected.” (Garrett Birkhoff, 1973)

"It is a curious fact that the first introduction of the imaginaries occurred in the theory of cubic equations, in the case where it was clear that real solutions existed though in an unrecognizable form, and not in the theory of quadratic equations, where our present textbooks introduce them." (Dirk J Struik, “A Concise History of Mathematics” Vol. I, 1948)

"We have shown the symbol √-1 to be void of meaning, or rather self-contradictory and absurd. Nevertheless, by means of such symbols, a part of algebra is established which is of great utility. It depends upon the fact, which must be verified by experience, that the common rules of algebra may be applied to these expressions without leading to any false results." (Augustus De Morgan)

"The word ‘imaginary’ is the great algebraical calamity, but it is too well established for mathematicians to eradicate. It should never have been used. Books on elementary algebra give a simple interpretation of imaginary numbers in terms of rotations. […] Although the interpretation by means of rotations proves nothing, it may suggest that there is no occasion for anyone to muddle himself into a state of mystic wonderment over nothing about the grossly misnamed ‘imaginaries’." (Philip E B Jourdain, "The Nature of Mathematics" in [James R Newman, “The World of Mathematics” Vol. I, 1956])

See also:
5 Books 10 Quotes: Complex Numbers V
Complex Numbers IV
Complex Numbers III
Complex Numbers I