text:
Talk:Columbia River

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Columbia River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68BrEA1wj?url=http://www.usbr.gov/main/about/ to http://www.usbr.gov/main/about/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170524040953/http://www.usbr.gov/pn/grandcoulee/ to http://www.usbr.gov/pn/grandcoulee/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Columbia River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20171208003427/http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/Nitrogen/FateTransport.html to http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/Nitrogen/FateTransport.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20171208003233/http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/Nitrogen/NitrogenNaturalSources.html to http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/Nitrogen/NitrogenNaturalSources.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Columbia River


text:
Talk:Cannabis

Less than helpful illustration subtitle
The illustration in the section "recreational use" has a description reading: "Comparison of physical harm and dependence regarding various drugs". However, the graph there shows active/lethal dose ratio (i.e. how much you'd have to consume for fatal effects, vs how much will do to get you the desired effect) and potential addictive qualities of several "drugs". Meaning that physical harm as such isn't adressed but onyl potential lethality, which obviously can be pre-faced by a lot of physcial harm short of dying. This isn't necessarily the case for Cannabis but as the the section in general could benefit from some more research as to the psycho-social impacts of cannabis consumption, this comes quite close to intentionally confusing the reader. Even reducing the discussion of adverse effect to bodily harm proper is reductive to the point of being apologetic, but boiling it down even further to lethality is flat out denial. Hello people

Merge proposal
Based on the discussion above, I propose merging Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis into Cannabis. The most recent literature on the subject no longer supports splitting Cannabis sativa into separate subspecies or varieties and the genus is now accepted as monotypic by the primary database for flowering plants (Plants of the World). Loopy30 (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

 * I disagree and think they should remain separate so there can be a dedicated article of focus for each. These species are clearly different and need to be separated as such. There has been hundreds of years of documentation that they are uniquely separate. They are physically distinct (size, shape, leaf, physical appearance) from each other and the grow differently from each other. The instructions for growing a Cannabis Sativa is not the same as growing a Cannabis ruderalis because they're different. Not to mention how much longer of a book Cannabis would need to be to further explain all these differences unless your saying we should pretend they're all the same thing, but they're not the same thing. Gettinglit (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree 2601:C7:4203:8AB0:D5A2:6494:ADC6:116C (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. These are completely different subjects, and should NOT be merged. The article Cannabis is about the plant, itself. The three "species" articles, Sativa, Indica, Ruderalis, are about three major, broad varieties, and they warrant separate articles, themselves, whether or not agreement exists about the three (actually four, let's not forget Feral cannabis) actually belonging to the same species classification, scientifically. - The Hammer of Thor (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I would support merging the three, or otherwise renaming the pages for C. sativa, C. indica and C. ruderalis to indicate that they are varieties of one species. 2604:3D08:7582:300:A113:552F:B7D8:71AB (talk) 06:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep them separate! Redefining the level of a taxon doesn't alter or remove relative distinctions between their constituents. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The difficulty with these counter-proposals that seek to retain three distinct articles at either the species, subspecies, or variety level, is that none of these concepts of a divided Cannabis species is still supported by modern science. To continue to retain separate articles on a plant demands at the least that reliable sources be provided that could describe the botanical differences between these formerly separate species. @Gettinglit, @The Hammer of Thor, and @UpdateNerd, what sources could you suggest that would support this three-way separation? Loopy30 (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Classifications by...
 * Lamarck 1785
 * Paxton and Lindley 1868
 * Delile 2849
 * Hooker and Thompson 1855
 * Johnson 1868
 * All describe them as separate species with a distinctly different look and cultivation and claims they are separate species. Ruderalis doesn't grow on the same schedule, doesn't look like sativa or indica, it's not the same species and needs to be classified separately so we can all tell them apart and learn their individual history.
 * Granted, you can also find influence as far back as the 1800s for disputing if they should all be lumped into Sativa although i've seen articles that have it debated as an arguably racist culture issue from some early British colonists refusing to accept anything but Sativa and incorrectly lumping Indicia and Ruderalis in with Sativa, not to mention modern influence with laws that bans Sativa specifically meaning if Indica and Ruderalis is its own species lots of peoples rights have been violated.
 * The choice to lump them all together as if they are the same species when they have so many distinct differences from physical to cultivation is bizarre, this is like lumping in Leonotis leonurus and Leonotis nepetifolia together or Mentha aquatica and Spearmint together, but we have a way of lumping them in together, it's called the family of Lamiaceae and for Cannabis, the family of Cannabaceae. Gettinglit (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems to me that there are two different issues. (1) Is there botanically a single species? Reliable sources are overwhelmingly clear that there is, and that the scientific names Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis are synonyms of Cannabis sativa, so my answer to this question is "yes". (2) Should there be separate articles on the cultivated forms that have been described in the past as Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis? I think this can be justified, but the issue is what the article titles should be.
 * (This is an example of a more general problem that comes up repeatedly with cultigens that have in the past been described as separate species, but turn out to be just selections of a single species.) Peter coxhead (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Cannabis ruderalis is maybe covered by Feral cannabis and Autoflowering cannabis (I don't think feral cannabis occurring outside of Asia is ruderalis, but the article for C. ruderalis has (non-scientific) sources that treat feral cannabis from other regions as ruderalis). Given that current popular usage (as detailed in Cannabis) has "Indica" and "Sativa" essentially reversed from botanical usage (e.g. in terms of THC/CBD ratios discussed in scientific publications vs. cannabis industry publications) it is very to difficult to maintain independent articles on the putative species. There are a bunch of competing alternative classifications that aren't based on species/subspecies names. Wide-leaf/narrow-leaf, Hemp-type/drug-type (sometimes with multiple drug-types recognized). It's easier to address the different recent classifications in a single article Cannabis article where they can be compared (or perhaps in a Taxonomy of Cannabis article), rather than spinning them off into separate articles where comparisons will have to be contextualized in each article. Plantdrew (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * When were the supposed subspecies described, and when was their status as synonyms accepted? We might have enough material for a taxonomy article. Dimadick (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Illegal Plant
My edit was rolled back by a bot, which was incorrect. It included valuable and highly relevant information, possibly the most notable in the article. It's quite extraordinary that a living organism is prohibited almost globally. There is no country where it is entirely legal, with only 3-5 countries where it is somewhat tolerated (semi-legal). In all other countries, this organism is destroyed wherever it is found. This is indeed something very special and more then noteworthy (central). Helpi679 (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Cannabis has been entirely legal for adults (much like alcohol) in Canada since October, 2018. Thoric (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

 * I understand, but in 99% of all countries, it's NOT legal. Even in Canada, I don't believe cannabis plants are allowed to grow wild in local parks. So, the plant is illegal there as well. That's the point. The plant itself is banned across the entire planet, and even if there are 2-3-5 places in the world where it's legal or tolerated, it makes no difference.

It's very unusual and abnormal to say "organism xy is banned on the planet," regardless of its use. Think about it: it's a living organism, and this organism has essentially been denied the right to exist. Naturally, it would grow wild and live everywhere. But we don't allow it and instead, we pursue and destroy it. If that's not a significant, major, and unusual point, then I don't know what is. Helpi679 (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

 * I wholeheartedly agree that no plants should be illegal or criminalized. It is a crime against nature, and a cruel and unusual oppression the constitutional rights and freedom of people. This is not limited to cannabis, but certainly cannabis is one of the main controlled substances around the world, thanks to the UN Convention on Narcotics (despite cannabis not being a "narcotic"), which is thanks to the American "War on (some) Drugs". These plants are not criminalized and destroyed because they are deadly or toxic -- there are plenty of highly deadly plants which are perfectly legal to grow and possess, but they are illegal because they are perceived to be a threat to the core industries of Government, Church, and Patent Medicine. These industries are also associated with those relating to policing, national security, law and order, and the industries built around chemistry and petro-chemicals, thus also having a strong connection to the oil industry. It's all connected, and much of the natural world is threatened by extractive and exploitive capitalist consumerist industries and practices. Our entire economy, ethos, culture, and even our state religion is built around this. Any substance which has the potential to encourage free thought is considered to be highly dangerous to the State, and hence why those most likely to encourage free thought (cannabis, MDMA, psilocybin, LSD, DMT, mescaline, Ayahuasca, Iboga, etc) are under the America Controlled Substances Act in Schedule I -- untouchable, forbidden and unprescribable. All the "dangerous street drugs" (such as cocaine, methamphetamine, and opioids like fentanyl) are in Schedule II -- dangerous, addictive, but have a prescribable medical purpose. Please note that most of the substances in Schedule I are the visionary sacred plant medicines of all the indigenous peoples from around the world. Thoric (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Its not about its right or wrong. Its about its a VERY special point! There are not much orgaism what are banned on the entire planet. So this point should be made in the article - central. Helpi679 (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Well, what this article (and ones abut other controlled substances) should have is a summary paragraph stating that Cannabis is a controlled substance, and a link into the Controlled substance article. Thoric (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Etymology
Here is the etymology given from Wiktionary, with credible sources given. The etymology given here is from a non-scholarly book. "A Kulturwort or Wanderwort of unknown ultimate origin, perhaps Scythian or Thracian (according to a remark made by Herodotus, that Scythians and Thracians knew the plant) or possibly “belonging to the pre-Indo-European agricultural layer”. A proposal going back to Schrader derives the word from Proto-Finno-Ugric *kana-pis: compare Eastern Mari кыне́ (kyńé), Western Mari кӹне (kÿńe, “hemp”) and Komi-Permyak пыш (pyš), Udmurt пыш (pyš, “hemp”), but Finno-Ugricists deny the existence of such a compound. Compare (wihtin the Indo-European language family) Albanian kërp, Old Armenian կանեփ (kanepʻ), կանափ (kanapʻ), Proto-Slavic *konopь, Lithuanian kanãpė, Latvian kaņepe, Old Prussian knapios, Proto-Germanic *hanapiz (> English hemp), Middle Persian [script needed] (kʾnb /kā̆naβ/), Persian کنب (kanab), کنو (kanav), کنف (kanaf, “kenaf”), Northern Kurdish kinif, Sogdian [script needed] (kynpʾ /kēnapā/), Khwarezmian [script needed] (knb-ynk), Ossetian гӕн (gæn), гӕнӕ (gænæ), Khotanese 𐨐𐨎𐨱 (kaṃha), 𐨐𐨂𐨎𐨦𐨌 (kuṃbā), Wakhi kəm, perhaps also to Sanskrit शण (śaṇá), Middle Persian [script needed] (šn' /šan/), the satem variants of the same etymon, and to Sanskrit भाङ्ग (bhāṅga), Persian بنگ (bang), the reverse forms of it (due to a taboo). Compare further Sumerian [script needed] (kunibu), Neo-Assyrian Akkadian 𒋆𒄣𒌦𒈾𒁍 (qunnabu, qunappu, qun(u)bu), Classical Syriac ܩܢܦܐ (qnpʾ), Arabic قِنَّب (qinnab), Georgian კანაფი (ḳanapi), Svan ქან (kan), Mingrelian კიფი (ḳipi), Laz კერფი (ǩerpi), Adyghe кӏэп (kʼɛp), Kabardian щӏэп (śʼɛp), Abkhaz ақәны (akʷnə), Eastern Mari кыне (kyńe), Karakalpak [script needed] (kenep), Turkish kendir. The interrelationship of all these forms is disputed."

I suggest someone with the knowhow to utilize the Wiktionary page below to rewrite the etymology section on this. Please do not try to use a new age book on spirituality for the source, use credible sources, such as those cited on the page below.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%AC%CE%BD%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B2%CE%B9%CF%82#Ancient_Greek

Tommygunn7886 (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please stop edit warring and disparaging Sears 2016, which is a scholarly source. The academic consensus is that cannabis is a Scythian word, and this is reflected in multiple reliable sources. Wiktionary, etymonline, etc are not reliable sources. University of Pennsylvania Press, Bloomsbury, etc definitely are. A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm disparaging a new age book titled "Seeking the Sacred with Psychoactive Substances: Chemical Paths to Spirituality and to God" being used as a source for an etymology, because it is quite frankly ridiculous. Actual scholars believe it may have come from Scythians or Thracians, but it is uncertain. Are you actually claiming that a book on new age drug use is more scholarly than ] Beekes, Robert S. P. (2010)? You are as academic as the YouTube quack survive the jive. That is why I asked earlier if you follow mencius moldbug, because his entire premise is about faking history in the way he wants it written. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If these sources are credible contained within the text, you are required to cite them "as cited in" Tommygunn7886 (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is also extremely dishonest to claim that I suggested citing Wiktionary, I suggested citing the source used on Wiktionary, Beekes, Robert S. P. (2010)  (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 10), volume I, with the assistance of Lucien van Beek, Leiden, Boston: Brill, which is far more scholarly, as it is actually written by a linguist, than some new age book on how doing drugs makes you able to communicate with gods Tommygunn7886 (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

AI evaluation
Out of curiosity and as an experiment, I used AI to evaluate the lead of this article. Overall it rated it as a very accurate and neutral summary of the topic. It did however suggest to following would make the lead more complete:

 * Cultural and Legal Aspects: A brief mention of the cultural significance and varying legal status of Cannabis in different regions could provide a more comprehensive overview.
 * Biological and Chemical Properties: Including some details on the plant's biological characteristics and the chemical properties of cannabinoids might enhance the scientific value of the summary.

This does in fact make sense in light of the rest of the article. Our leads are best thought of as a summary of the most salient aspects of the entire article. And in that sense too, the lead would be best if legal, cultural, and scientific elements were serviced since they do form a large portion of the article proper. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Cannabis


text:
Complex analysis

Complex analysis, traditionally known as the theory of functions of a complex variable, is the branch of mathematical analysis that investigates functions of complex numbers. It is helpful in many branches of mathematics, including algebraic geometry, number theory, analytic combinatorics, and applied mathematics, as well as in physics, including the branches of hydrodynamics, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and twistor theory. By extension, use of complex analysis also has applications in engineering fields such as nuclear, aerospace, mechanical and electrical engineering.

As a differentiable function of a complex variable is equal to its Taylor series (that is, it is analytic), complex analysis is particularly concerned with analytic functions of a complex variable, that is, holomorphic functions. The concept can be extended to functions of several complex variables.

History
Complex analysis is one of the classical branches in mathematics, with roots in the 18th century and just prior. Important mathematicians associated with complex numbers include Euler, Gauss, Riemann, Cauchy, Gösta Mittag-Leffler, Weierstrass, and many more in the 20th century. Complex analysis, in particular the theory of conformal mappings, has many physical applications and is also used throughout analytic number theory. In modern times, it has become very popular through a new boost from complex dynamics and the pictures of fractals produced by iterating holomorphic functions. Another important application of complex analysis is in string theory which examines conformal invariants in quantum field theory.

Complex functions
A complex function is a function from complex numbers to complex numbers. In other words, it is a function that has a (not necessarily proper) subset of the complex numbers as a domain and the complex numbers as a codomain. Complex functions are generally assumed to have a domain that contains a nonempty open subset of the complex plane.

For any complex function, the values $$z$$ from the domain and their images $$f(z)$$ in the range may be separated into real and imaginary parts:

 * $$z=x+iy \quad \text{ and } \quad f(z) = f(x+iy)=u(x,y)+iv(x,y),$$

where $$x,y,u(x,y),v(x,y)$$ are all real-valued.

In other words, a complex function $$f:\mathbb{C}\to\mathbb{C}$$ may be decomposed into

 * $$u:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R} \quad$$ and $$\quad v:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R},$$

i.e., into two real-valued functions ($$u$$, $$v$$) of two real variables ($$x$$, $$y$$).

Similarly, any complex-valued function $n$ on an arbitrary set $f$ (is isomorphic to, and therefore, in that sense, it) can be considered as an ordered pair of two real-valued functions: $A^{n}$ or, alternatively, as a vector-valued function from $X$ into $$\mathbb R^2.$$

Some properties of complex-valued functions (such as continuity) are nothing more than the corresponding properties of vector valued functions of two real variables. Other concepts of complex analysis, such as differentiability, are direct generalizations of the similar concepts for real functions, but may have very different properties. In particular, every differentiable complex function is analytic (see next section), and two differentiable functions that are equal in a neighborhood of a point are equal on the intersection of their domain (if the domains are connected). The latter property is the basis of the principle of analytic continuation which allows extending every real analytic function in a unique way for getting a complex analytic function whose domain is the whole complex plane with a finite number of curve arcs removed. Many basic and special complex functions are defined in this way, including the complex exponential function, complex logarithm functions, and trigonometric functions.

Holomorphic functions
Complex functions that are differentiable at every point of an open subset $$\Omega$$ of the complex plane are said to be holomorphic on $\Omega$. In the context of complex analysis, the derivative of $$f$$ at $$z_0$$ is defined to be

 * $$f'(z_0) = \lim_{z \to z_0} \frac{f(z)-f(z_0)}{z-z_0}.$$

Superficially, this definition is formally analogous to that of the derivative of a real function. However, complex derivatives and differentiable functions behave in significantly different ways compared to their real counterparts. In particular, for this limit to exist, the value of the difference quotient must approach the same complex number, regardless of the manner in which we approach $$z_0$$ in the complex plane. Consequently, complex differentiability has much stronger implications than real differentiability. For instance, holomorphic functions are infinitely differentiable, whereas the existence of the nth derivative need not imply the existence of the (n + 1)th derivative for real functions. Furthermore, all holomorphic functions satisfy the stronger condition of analyticity, meaning that the function is, at every point in its domain, locally given by a convergent power series. In essence, this means that functions holomorphic on $$\Omega$$ can be approximated arbitrarily well by polynomials in some neighborhood of every point in $$\Omega$$. This stands in sharp contrast to differentiable real functions; there are infinitely differentiable real functions that are nowhere analytic; see.

Most elementary functions, including the exponential function, the trigonometric functions, and all polynomial functions, extended appropriately to complex arguments as functions $\mathbb{C}\to\mathbb{C}$, are holomorphic over the entire complex plane, making them entire functions, while rational functions $$p/q$$, where p and q are polynomials, are holomorphic on domains that exclude points where q is zero. Such functions that are holomorphic everywhere except a set of isolated points are known as meromorphic functions. On the other hand, the functions $z\mapsto \Re(z)$, $z\mapsto and $$z\mapsto \bar{z}$$ are not holomorphic anywhere on the complex plane, as can be shown by their failure to satisfy the Cauchy–Riemann conditions (see below).

An important property of holomorphic functions is the relationship between the partial derivatives of their real and imaginary components, known as the Cauchy–Riemann conditions. If $$f:\mathbb{C}\to\mathbb{C}$$, defined by $f(z) = f(x + iy) = u(x, y) + iv(x, y)$, where $x, y, u(x, y),v(x, y) \in \R$, is holomorphic on a region $\Omega$, then for all $$z_0\in \Omega$$,
 * $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial\bar{z}}(z_0) = 0,\ \text{where } \frac\partial{\partial\bar{z}} \mathrel{:=} \frac12\left(\frac\partial{\partial x} + i\frac\partial{\partial y}\right).$$

In terms of the real and imaginary parts of the function, u and v, this is equivalent to the pair of equations $$u_x = v_y$$ and $$u_y=-v_x$$, where the subscripts indicate partial differentiation. However, the Cauchy–Riemann conditions do not characterize holomorphic functions, without additional continuity conditions (see Looman–Menchoff theorem).

Holomorphic functions exhibit some remarkable features. For instance, Picard's theorem asserts that the range of an entire function can take only three possible forms: $\mathbb{C}$, $\mathbb{C}\setminus\{z_0\}$, or $$\{z_0\}$$ for some $z_0\in\mathbb{C}$. In other words, if two distinct complex numbers $$z$$ and $$w$$ are not in the range of an entire function $f$, then $$f$$ is a constant function. Moreover, a holomorphic function on a connected open set is determined by its restriction to any nonempty open subset.

Major results
[[Image:Complex-plot.png|right|thumb|262px|[[Domain coloring|Color wheel graph]] of the function $(Re f, Im f)$.

Hue represents the argument, brightness the magnitude.]] One of the central tools in complex analysis is the line integral. The line integral around a closed path of a function that is holomorphic everywhere inside the area bounded by the closed path is always zero, as is stated by the Cauchy integral theorem. The values of such a holomorphic function inside a disk can be computed by a path integral on the disk's boundary (as shown in Cauchy's integral formula). Path integrals in the complex plane are often used to determine complicated real integrals, and here the theory of residues among others is applicable (see methods of contour integration). A "pole" (or isolated singularity) of a function is a point where the function's value becomes unbounded, or "blows up". If a function has such a pole, then one can compute the function's residue there, which can be used to compute path integrals involving the function; this is the content of the powerful residue theorem. The remarkable behavior of holomorphic functions near essential singularities is described by Picard's theorem. Functions that have only poles but no essential singularities are called meromorphic. Laurent series are the complex-valued equivalent to Taylor series, but can be used to study the behavior of functions near singularities through infinite sums of more well understood functions, such as polynomials.

A bounded function that is holomorphic in the entire complex plane must be constant; this is Liouville's theorem. It can be used to provide a natural and short proof for the fundamental theorem of algebra which states that the field of complex numbers is algebraically closed.

If a function is holomorphic throughout a connected domain then its values are fully determined by its values on any smaller subdomain. The function on the larger domain is said to be analytically continued from its values on the smaller domain. This allows the extension of the definition of functions, such as the Riemann zeta function, which are initially defined in terms of infinite sums that converge only on limited domains to almost the entire complex plane. Sometimes, as in the case of the natural logarithm, it is impossible to analytically continue a holomorphic function to a non-simply connected domain in the complex plane but it is possible to extend it to a holomorphic function on a closely related surface known as a Riemann surface.

All this refers to complex analysis in one variable. There is also a very rich theory of complex analysis in more than one complex dimension in which the analytic properties such as power series expansion carry over whereas most of the geometric properties of holomorphic functions in one complex dimension (such as conformality) do not carry over. The Riemann mapping theorem about the conformal relationship of certain domains in the complex plane, which may be the most important result in the one-dimensional theory, fails dramatically in higher dimensions.

A major application of certain complex spaces is in quantum mechanics as wave functions.

title: Complex analysis