Talk:Complex conjugate/Archive 1

Archive 1

imaginary vs pure imaginary

"imaginary" could mean pure imaginary... ...and "complex" does not negate "real". Real roots do not come by pairs. So we're on a par. A better idea ? --FvdP

hmmm.... I've always seen them called them "real roots" vs. "complex roots" (in UK terminology at least). I suppose we could say "non-real", but it sounds clunky. -- Tarquin 00:10 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

you may be right about "complex"... it's been a time. (But yet, outside of that "root" context "complex" does not entail "non-real".) I wrote "outside of the real line", more pedestrian but less clunky. Perhaps is the whole think not worth the fuss, either. Too late ;-) --FvdP 00:14 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

As far as I know: A complex number z = a + ib, where a and b are real and i is the imaginary unit (i² = -1). Therefore a complex number could be where b = 0, leaving just z = a, a is real. Basically, I think a real numbers are a subset of complex numbers. I'm pretty sure that's the case. Though when you say "complex" you typically mean where b <> 0. (Technically, real roots do come in pairs... r = a ± ib, b <> 0 :-P) -- Deskana (talk page) 19:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)