6

By definition, $i^2=-1$, right?

But one can then clearly deduce that $(-i)^2=-1$. The only difference I see is that one is $-1$ times the second.

So what allows us to differentiate between $i$ and $-i$? Can they be used synonymous? That is, does nothing happen if all of a sudden we were to switch $i$ and $-i$ in math, so long as we are consistent?

Simply Beautiful Art
  • 76,603
  • 9
    we can hold the same argument for 2 and -2 right...? –  Jan 02 '17 at 13:55
  • 7
    I think the point here is that there is no way to distinguish in a purely algebraic way the roots of an irreducible polynomial. Here $i$ and $-i$ are the two roots of the polynomial $x^2 + 1$ which is irreducible over the reals. Complex conjugation (an automorphism of the complex field that fixes each real number) exchanges the two, so that they cannot be distinguished algebraically. – Andreas Caranti Jan 02 '17 at 13:59
  • 5
    @A.Molendijk No we cannot, for example $1$ and $-1$ can be differentiated intrinsically by the fact that $1$ solves $x^2=x$ while $-1$ does not. I believe the OP is asking whether a similar intrinsic characterization of $i$ vs $-i$ exists -- and the answer is no (which makes the question interesting). – Did Jan 02 '17 at 14:00
  • 2
    @Did What a strange question I have stumbled upon. – Simply Beautiful Art Jan 02 '17 at 14:01
  • 1
    If one thinks in depth about the nature of the complex field, the question is natural (and it is addressed by @AndreasCaranti's comment). – Did Jan 02 '17 at 14:03
  • What do you mean by "one is $-1$ times the second"??? – barak manos Jan 02 '17 at 14:03
  • 3
    @barakmanos ?? $(-i)=(-1)\times i$ and $i=(-1)\times(-i)$. – Did Jan 02 '17 at 14:04
  • @Did: Well, then I guess that I don't understand what the question is actually about. In fact, I see that the first comment here explains my lack of understanding pretty accurately... – barak manos Jan 02 '17 at 14:06
  • 1
    @barakmanos I suggest to scroll down to the second comment (and maybe even to Mark's answer). – Did Jan 02 '17 at 14:08
  • 6
    If anyone were to think that this question is trivial, it's worth noting that pretty much this single idea can be considered the basis of Galois theory - we can swap $i$ and $-i$ and all of algebra and arithmetic stays the same, so as soon as we ask "what other permutations of a field can do that?" we enter the automorphism theory. – Wojowu Jan 02 '17 at 14:16
  • @HansLundmark Nice find! Thank you! – Simply Beautiful Art Jan 02 '17 at 14:30

1 Answers1

9

There is some interesting mathematics bound up in your question. There is an automorphism of $\mathbb C$ as a field extension of $\mathbb R$ which is defined by sending $i$ to $-i$. Provided you are consistent (including very great care with signs) everything algebraic works nicely. This reflects the fact that in building $\mathbb C$ from $\mathbb R$ we make an arbitrary choice of a square root of $-1$ to call $i$.

For amusement there is an automorphism of $\mathbb Q(\sqrt 2)$ as an extension of $\mathbb Q$ which sends $\sqrt 2$ to $-\sqrt 2$ - for much the same reason. However, interesting things happen to the metric (distance between points) - so though the algebraic properties are retained, it is not true that "everything" remains the same.

Mark Bennet
  • 101,769
  • I think the same doesn't happen with square roots because we defined them so that the square root of a perfect square is a positive integer. – J. C. Jan 02 '17 at 14:07
  • 4
    Indeed, with automorphisms we often have the metric "messing up". This is not the case with complex automorphism, however. And complex conjugation is very special with this regard - if we consider any two embedding of a number field in $\mathbb C$, then they will give rise to very different metrics, unless they are equal or complex conjugates. – Wojowu Jan 02 '17 at 14:10