tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed ("What makes complex analysis special?") Sun, 04 Nov 2018 13:55:05 -0800 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/ Lussumo Vanilla 1.1.9 & Feed Publisher Scott Carnahan comments on ""What makes complex analysis special?"" (18046) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1276/what-makes-complex-analysis-special/?Focus=18046#Comment_18046 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1276/what-makes-complex-analysis-special/?Focus=18046#Comment_18046 Sat, 14 Jan 2012 19:58:26 -0800 Scott Carnahan As you can see, I pointed it to a page that was identical to the first question. Unfortunately, this doesn't cover the second, "why not quaternions" question.

]]> Yemon Choi comments on ""What makes complex analysis special?"" (18034) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1276/what-makes-complex-analysis-special/?Focus=18034#Comment_18034 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1276/what-makes-complex-analysis-special/?Focus=18034#Comment_18034 Fri, 13 Jan 2012 23:52:04 -0800 Yemon Choi This question currently has three votes to close. While it seems rather vague and "stone-soupy", I seem to remember hearing that there is something to be said in this direction, via Clifford algebras and higher-dimensional versions of Cauchy-Riemann.

So for me, this doesn't automatically fall into the class of questions which do not admit good answers, although I admit that as phrased it could easily invite a bunch of not very good ones...

]]>