zlacker

>>mef+(OP)
> It’s as if a biologist were to say: “I have a great new theory of organisms. It lists many that exist and many that can’t possibly exist, and I can tell you nothing about the distinction.”

> Again, we’d laugh. Or should.

Should we? This reminds me acutely of imaginary numbers. They are a great theory of numbers that can list many numbers that do 'exist' and many that can't possibly 'exist'. And we did laugh when imaginary numbers were first introduced - the name itself was intended as a derogatory term for the concept. But who's laughing now?

>>johnfn+e4
Imaginary numbers are not relevant at all. There’s nothing whatsoever to do with the everyday use of the word imaginary. They could just as easily have been called “vertical numbers” and real numbers called “horizontal numbers” in order to more clearly illustrate their geometric interpretation in the complex plane.

The term “imaginary number” was coined by Rene Descartes as a derogatory and the ill intent behind his term has stuck ever since. I suspect his purpose was theological rather than mathematical and we are all the worse for it.

>>chongl+G6
I'm confused by this comment - it seems to just be restating what my comment said.