1

Background

I am teaching senior high school students about the structure of numbers. Start from defining $\mathbb{Q}$ and $\mathbb{R}$ as the rational and real numbers respectively, we can define $\mathbb{R}-\mathbb{Q}$ as the irrational numbers.

I am trying to use the same logic to define imaginary numbers by making use of the relationship between $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{C}$. Another definition for imaginary numbers is

numbers that become negative under squaring operation.

enter image description here

Let $\mathbb{C}$ and $\mathbb{R}$ be the complex and real number sets respectively. Are $\mathbb{C}-\mathbb{R}$ imaginary numbers?

Display Name
  • 2,715

2 Answers2

7

Imaginary numbers are real multiples of $\mathrm{i}$. So the complex number $1+\mathrm{i} \in \Bbb{C} \smallsetminus \Bbb{R}$ is neither real nor imaginary.

Eric Towers
  • 67,037
  • @Artificial Stupidity, R lies inside C, ofc. A complex number is made of real and imaginary part.. so I don't quite get you. – UmbQbify Jul 24 '20 at 22:02
  • @UmbQbify-Key20- : A real number has zero imaginary part and an imaginary number has zero real part. Any complex number with neither part zero is neither real nor imaginary. – Eric Towers Jul 27 '20 at 13:04
1

Depends what you mean by "imaginary." Perhaps you mean an element of $\Bbb{C}$ of the form $ai$ for $a\in \Bbb{R}$ in which case this is false. Indeed, in the complex plane you have removed only the "$x$-axis" so that $$\Bbb{C}\setminus \Bbb{R}=\{a+bi:b \ne 0\:\text{and}\:a,b\in \Bbb{R}\}.$$

  • Shouldn’t this be the set of all $bi$’s ? Where $a = 0$? Since you’re taking out the “real part” of the complex number - giving a simply pure imaginary number. – Taylor Rendon Jul 24 '20 at 21:43
  • 1
    It's possible I'm misunderstanding, but for instance like in Eric Towers' answer, $1+i\in \Bbb{C}\setminus \Bbb{R}$, which is not of the form $bi$. (Edit: there was a mistake, but the mistake was that it should be $b\ne 0$ rather than $a\ne 0$). – Alekos Robotis Jul 24 '20 at 21:45
  • Gotcha! Your correction makes sense now. Thanks for your time. – Taylor Rendon Jul 24 '20 at 21:48