Do complex numbers really exist?

Question

Complex numbers involve the square root of negative one, and most non-mathematicians find it hard to accept that such a number is meaningful. In contrast, they feel that real numbers have an obvious and intuitive meaning. What's the best way to explain to a non-mathematician that complex numbers are necessary and meaningful, in the same way that real numbers are?

This is not a Platonic question about the reality of mathematics, or whether abstractions are as real as physical entities, but an attempt to bridge a comprehension gap that many people experience when encountering complex numbers for the first time. The wording, although provocative, is deliberately designed to match the way that many people do in fact ask this question.

Answer 1

There is a lovely way of motivating the "existence" of the complex numbers just by using a little calculus on the real numbers. I found this in Visual Complex Analysis, and it tickled me, so I thought I'd share it here, despite the lateness of the answer.

If $r_1,...,r_n$ are real numbers, define:

$$f(x)= \frac{1}{(x-r_1)(x-r_2)...(x-r_n)}$$

When $a\notin \{r_1,...,,r_n\}$ we can find the Taylor series around $a$:

$$\sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{f^{(k)}(a)}{k!}(x-a)^k$$

The question is, for what (real) $x$ does this series converge to $f(x)$?

As it turns out, if we let $R=\min_{k} |a-r_k|$, then if $|x-a|<R$ this series converges to $f(x)$ and if $|x-a|>R$, then it doesn't converge.

So, in a sense, the $r_i$ "block" the ability of the Taylor series to converge around them.

Now, what about the Taylor series for $g(x)=\frac{1}{x^2+1}$?

Given an $a$, this function has no "real" blockages - it is defined on all of $\mathbb R$ - but the Taylor series for $g(x)$ around $a$ has a similar $R$ value, and that $R$ value is $\sqrt{1+a^2}$, a value that can be computed entirely with real number calculations.

That then looks like there is some geometric obstruction to the Taylor series, an obstruction not on the real line, but a unit distance away from the real line in a perpendicular direction away from $0$. It "looks like" an "imaginary" root of $x^2+1=0$.

Answer 2

I'm not a mathematician and for a long time I've struggled with the question if numbers exist.

Mathematics is a language. Numbers are part of its vocabulary, like "apple" is part of the English vocabulary. Just like you can build a sentence with the word "apple" you can build equations with numbers, and just like you have to follow certain rules to make a correct sentence you have to follow certain rules for your equation to hold true.
Now, and I'm trying not go into semiotics (of which I know nothing), the word "apple" is not an apple: you can't eat the word "apple" for one thing. But it exists in the language. You can invent things in a language to represent things in the real world. Does the verb "to walk" exist? It represents an action in the real world, but in itself it is nothing.
I think the same is true with numbers: numbers exist because we defined them in the language of mathematics, but they only make sense if you can connect them to something real. Natural numbers often represent the cardinality of sets: 10 may the number of real world apples in a real world basket. Rational numbers come in handy when comparing things: one apple mat be 1.2 times as large as another one. To non-mathematicians irrational numbers make less sense, for everyday non-mathematical use even pi is rational: 22/7.
Now for complex numbers same thing: we define them in the language of mathematics, but just like irrational numbers it's much harder to make them represent something real, although especially physicists are very good at describing the real world with them. What about other numbers like quaternions? They're part of the language, and are often required to make the grammar fit.

So, are complex numbers real? (mind the pun! :-))
They obviously exist in the language of mathematics, and may be used to describe real world things and events, but in themselves I don't think they exist.

Answer 3

In the en they exists as a consistent definition, you cannot be agnostic about it.