[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
**Subject**: **Re: Lua evolution and C99**
**From**: joao lobato <btnfdp.lobato@...>
**Date**: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:50:02 +0100

Well, I think you guys know your Algebra and your Calculus better than me.
I also think that it would be far more useful to add integers to the
language rather than replace the numeric type with complexes. (In
fact, what would be the benefit of being able to represent 4+5i
literally ?)
On 8/10/11, Leo Razoumov <slonik.az@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 17:41, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Leo Razoumov <slonik.az@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> Complex numbers are not an ordered field [1], that is, you cannot
>>> define an ordering which is consistent with arithmetic operations [2]
>>
>> That's apparently accepted nomenclature, but I have to say that I find
>> this use of "consistent" rather arbitrary.
>
> David,
> I am not going to debate text-book material on Complex Numbers with
> you that is only tangentially relevant to Lua. Any good college book
> on Algebra would do.
>
> As you pointed out in your previous posting, your proposed ordering
> works fine as long as you ensure that the constant multipliers are
> _real_ numbers. Therefore, it makes even more sense to allow for both
> numeric types _real_ and _complex_ to be present in the language.
> Otherwise, you will have to check if(z*==z) all the time. And keep in
> mind that complex conjugation is not a linear operation.
>
> This is all I have to say. Since I feel some anger in your previous
> posting I would sign off from this thread for good.
>
> Regards,
> --Leo--
>
>