bperet wrote:
As a physics student, what degree of explanation do you think would be needed? We have Nehru's paper he wrote for me on Complex Numbers (in the RS2 forum)... where would be a good starting point?
As a physics student, the degree of explanation in Nehru's paper is elementary, at least by the teaching standards here. The idea of the rotation by 90 and 180 degrees respectively is very well known, however, what is missing is the physical connection. For example, when 'i' is operated on x axis, it rotates to y. But this 'y' is not the same 'y' of the cartesian plane, but that of something called the "Argand plane" or complex plane. No one has a clue what this argand plane represents, but just use it as a tool, saying: it is
as if the vector is getting rotated etc.
So, the thought process should go something like this.
1.Rotation is primary in the time region.
2.It is not primary in the time space region, hence not "real" for us, and hence we cannot use real numbers for its representation.
3.But we still have to represent the "turn" in space/time terms, and without having any direct physical effect. We hence use numbers which aren't directly real, but are indirectly real (like:i squared is real).
4.Hence, the numbers should satisfy the two requirements of non real-ness and suitable for representation of rotation.
5.Enter complex numbers.
bperet wrote:
How about the content of the presentation? Were you able to follow it with just the slides and the notes?
I was able to follow it fine... But it would be better if you could get the feedback of others too... say Mike or Prof.Nehru. If you like, you can vary the slide design too... makes it more attractive. Just right click on the slide you are doing, and it'll show you some slide designs. It'll also show "Background" where you can change the slide back ground to any colour combination of your choice, and maybe even insert a picture from the net there. And of course there are always the fonts to play around with.
The important 'key-slides' like the one where you show the point plane duality would be better if made more colourful and less wordy. At least, once you get the audio in place. Wordiness reminds me too much of the course material in here!
The language is fantastic, clear and to the point.
Cheers,
Gopi