There have been a number of Scientific discoveries that seemed to be purely scientific curiosities that later turned out to be incredibly useful. Hertz famously commented about the discovery of radio waves: “I do not think that the wireless waves I have discovered will have any practical application.”

Are there examples like this in math as well? What is the most interesting “pure math” discovery that proved to be useful in solving a real-world problem?

  • JackbyDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    6 hours ago

    It’s imaginary numbers. Full stop. No debate about it. The idea of them is so wild that they were literally named imaginary numbers to demonstrate how silly they were, and yet they can be used to describe real things in nature.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 minutes ago

      I mean, quaternions are the weirder version of complex numbers, and they’re used for calculating 3D rotations in a lot of production code.

      There’s also the octonions and much inferior Clifford algebras beyond that, but I don’t know about applications.

    • chunes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I don’t really get 'em. It seems like people often use them as “a pair of numbers.” So why not just use a pair of numbers then?

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 minutes ago

        They also have a defined multiplication operation consistent with how it works on ordinary numbers. It’s not jut multiplying each number separately.

        A lot of math works better on them. For example, all n-degree polynomials have exactly n roots, and all smooth complex functions have a polynomial approximation at every point. Neither is true on the reals.

        Quantum mechanics could possibly work with pairs of real numbers, but it would be unclear what each one means on their own. Treating a probability amplitude as a single number is more satisfying in a lot of ways.

        They don’t exist is still a position you could take, but so is the opposite.

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        43 minutes ago

        I totally get your point, and sometimes it seems like that. Why not just use a coordinate system? Because innsome applications the complex roots of equations is relevant.

        If you square an imaginary number, it’s no longer an imaginary number. Now it’s a real number! That’s not something you can accomplish with something like a pair of numbers alone.

      • justastranger@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Because the second number has special rules and a unit. It’s not just a pair of numbers, though it can be represented through a pair of numbers (really helpful for computing).

    • alt_xa_23@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I’m studying EE in university, and have been surprised by just how much imaginary numbers are used

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 minutes ago

        From what I’ve seen that’s one example where you could totally just use trig and pairs of numbers, though. I might be missing something, because I’m not an electrical engineer.

      • underscores@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        EE is absolutely fascinating for applications of calculus in general.

        I didn’t give a shit about calculus and then EE just kept blowing my mind.

  • amelia@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    6 hours ago

    As far as I know, matrices were a “pure math” thing when they were first discovered and seemed pretty useless. Then physicists discovered them and used them for all sorts of shit and now they’re one of the most important tools in in science, engineering and programming.

  • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Imaginary numbers probably, they’re useful for a lot of stuff in math and even physics (I’ve heard turbulent flow calculations can use them?) but they seem useless at first

  • Etterra@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    10 hours ago

    The invention of the number 0, the discovery of irrational numbers, or l the realization that base 60 math makes sense for anything round, including timekeeping.

    • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 hours ago

      60 was chosen by the Ancient Sumerians specifically because of its divisibility by 2, 3, 4, and 5. Today, 60 is considered a superior highly composite number but that bit of theory wouldn’t have been as important to the Sumerians and Babylonians as the simple ability to divide 60 by many commonly used factors (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15) without any remainders or fractions to worry about.

  • saimen@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Having watched all the veritasium math videos I feel like all the major breakthroughs in math were due to mathemicians playing around with numbers or brain teasers out of curiosity without a concrete use case in mind.

  • TheBlindPew@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    The math fun fact I remember best from college is that Charles Boole invented Boolean algebra for his doctoral thesis and his goal was to create a branch of mathematics that was useless. For those not familiar with boolean algebra it works by using logic gates with 1s and 0s to determine a final 1 or 0 state and is subsequently the basis for all modern digital computing

  • truthfultemporarily@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    21 hours ago

    A brain teaser about visiting all islands connected by bridges without crossing the same bridge twice is now the basis of all internet routing. (Graph theory)

  • mkwt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    95
    ·
    1 day ago

    Non-Euclidean geometry was developed by pure mathematicians who were trying to prove the parallel line postulate as a theorem. They realized that all of the classic geometry theorems are all different if you start changing that postulate.

    This led to Riemannian geometry in 1854, which back then was a pure math exercise.

    Some 60 years later, in 1915, Albert Einstein published the theory of general relativity, of which the core mathematics is all Riemannian geometry.

        • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          That’s a perfect example of a typical interaction between a Technology Management Consultant and somebody from a STEM area.

          Techies with an Engineering background who are in Tech and Tech-adjacent companies are often in the receiving end of similar techno-bollocks which makes no sense from such “Technology” Management Consultants, but it’s seldom quite as public as this one.

  • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    20 hours ago

    If I recall correctly, one mathematician in the 1800s solved a very difficult line integral, and the first application of it was in early computer speech synthesis.

  • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    1 day ago

    I work with a guy who is a math whiz and loves to talk. Yesterday while I was invoicing clients, he was telling me how origami is much more effective for solving geometry than a compass and a straight edge.

    I’ll ask him this question.

    • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      1 day ago

      My disclaimer: I don’t know what any of this means, but it might give you a direction to start your research.

      First thing he came up with is Number Theory, and how they’ve been working on that for centuries, but they never would have imagined that it would be the basis of modern encryption. Multiplying a HUGE prime number with any other numbers is incredibly easy, but factoring the result into those same numbers is near impossible (within reasonable time constraints.)

      He said something about knot theory and bacterial proteins, but it was too far above my head to even try to relay how that’s relevant.

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 hours ago

        I am pretty sure that the first thing you mentioned (multiplying being easy and factoring being hard) is the basis of public key cryptography which is how HTTPS works.

        • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Somewhat related fun fact: One of the most concrete applications for quantum computers so far is breaking some encryption algorithms.

        • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          22 hours ago

          The following aren’t necessarily answers to your question, but he also mentioned these, and they are way too funny to not share:

          The Hairy Ball theorem

          Cox Ring

          Tits Alternative

          Wiener Measure

          The Cox-Zucker machine (although this was in the 70s and it’s rumored that Cox did most of the work and chose his partner ONLY for the name. 😂)

  • four@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    1 day ago

    IIRC quaternions were considered pretty useless until we started doing 3D stuff on computers and now they’re used everywhere

  • Björn Tantau@swg-empire.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Complex numbers. Also known as imaginary numbers. The imaginary number i is the solution to √-1. And it is really used in quantum mechanics and I think general relativity as well.

    • pcalau12i@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 hours ago

      A complex number is just two real numbers stitched together. It’s used in many areas, such as the Fourier transform which is common in computer science is often represented with complex numbers because it deals with waves and waves are two-dimensional, and so rather than needing two different equations you can represent it with a single equation where the two-dimensional behavior occurs on the complex-plane.

      In principle you can always just split a complex number into two real numbers and carry on the calculation that way. In fact, if we couldn’t, then no one would use complex numbers, because computers can’t process imaginary numbers directly. Every computer program that deals with complex numbers, behind the scenes, is decomposing it into two real-valued floating point numbers.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        48 minutes ago

        That’s not quite accurate because the two numbers have a relationship with each other. i^2 = - 1, so any time you square a complex number or multiply two complex numbers, some of the value jumps from one dimension to the other.

        It’s like a vector, where sure, certain operations can be treated as if the dimensions of the vector are distinct, like a translation or scale. But other operations can have one dimension affecting the other, like rotation.

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I don’t think this is really an accurate way of thinking about them. Yes, they can be mapped to a 2d plane, so you can represent them with their two real-numbered coordinates along the real and imaginary axes, but certain operations with them (eg. multiplication) can be done easily with complex numbers but are not obvious how to carry out with just grid points. (3,4) * (5,6) isn’t well-defined, but (3+4i) * (5+6i) is.

    • Bwaz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      19 hours ago

      It’s used extensively in electronic circuit design (where it’s called “j”, as "i’ already meant electronic current).

      Also signal processing has i or j all over it.

    • theherk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      I’m the akshually guy here, but complex numbers are the combination of a real number and an imaginary number. Agree with you, just being pedantic.

  • three_trains_in_a_trenchcoat@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Non-linear equations have entered the chat.

    Chaos and non-linear dynamics were treated as a toy or curiosity for a pretty long time, probably in no small part due to the complexity involved. It’s almost certainly no accident that the first serious explorations of it after Poincare happen after the advent of computers.

    So, one place where non-linear dynamics ended up having applications was in medicine. As I recall it from James Gleick’s book Chaos, inspired by recent discussion of Chaotic behavior in non-linear systems, medical doctors came up with the idea of electrical defibrillation- a way to reset the heart to a ground state and silence chaotic activity in lethal dysrhythmias that prevented the heart from functioning correctly.

    Fractals also inspired some file compression algorithms, as I recall, and they also provide a useful means of estimating the perimeters of irregular shapes.

    Also, there’s always work being done on turbulence, especially in the field of nuclear fusion as plasma turbulence seems to have a non-trivial impact on how efficiently a reactor can fuse plasma.

    • dylanmorgan@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      22 hours ago

      A good friend of mine from high school got his physics PhD at University of Texas and went on to work in the high energy plasma physics lab there with the Texas Petawatt laser, and a lot of the experiments it was used for involved plasma turbulence and determining what path energetic particles would take in a hypothetical fusion reactor.

      • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Be honest, how many unofficial experiments were there?

        You ever just start lasering shit for kicks?

        • duckythescientist@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Probably not as many as we’d like to think. I recently got to run a few days of tests at Lawrence Livermore National Labs with an absurdly massive laser. At one point we needed to bring in a small speaker for an audio test. It took the lab techs and managers about two hours and a couple phone calls to some higher ups to make sure it was ok and wouldn’t damage anything. There’s so much red tape and procedure in the way that I don’t think there’s an opportunity to just fuck around. The laser has irreplaceable parts that people aren’t willing to jeopardize. Newer or smaller lasers are going to be more relaxed. This one is old enough to be my father, and it’s LLNL’s second biggest single laser iirc. And they are the lab using lasers for fusion, so they have big lasers.