[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: scheme-reports <scheme-reports@x>*Subject*: Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0*From*: Vassil Nikolov <vnikolov@x>*Date*: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 23:13:17 -0500*In-reply-to*: <87zk19wmzv.fsf@tines.lan> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Wed\, 19 Dec 2012 20\:06\:28 -0500")*Organization*: #*References*: <20121214223854.GX29857@mercury.ccil.org> <CAGUt3y55KEVFn=6_i9yRXR8w_e8Nk2tN7QGCF8rEhYTs2Xgrjw@mail.gmail.com> <878v8z5iq8.fsf@tines.lan> <874njn5b65.fsf@tines.lan> <20121215204015.GG13463@mercury.ccil.org> <87obhv3ts0.fsf@tines.lan> <20121215231548.GC10312@mercury.ccil.org> <87bodu4r0r.fsf@tines.lan> <20121216041031.GE10312@mercury.ccil.org> <87pq25yh5s.fsf@tines.lan> <20121219221955.GH4477@mercury.ccil.org> <CAMMPzYP_=CbUkLJOHQbrqYQCRtrvU8PC36D-OQyMe0DyVZbp0g@mail.gmail.com> <87zk19wmzv.fsf@tines.lan>

On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 20:06:28 -0500, Mark H Weaver <mhw@x> said: > ... > No, several implementations (e.g. SCM, Gauche, Guile before 2.0, and > probably others) do not even support mixed exactness complex numbers of > this special kind, so (imag-part 2.0) => 0.0. Well, I believe that another point of view is preferable, namely, that (imag-part z) => 0 means that z is (certainly) a real number and that (imag-part z) => 0.0 means that z is a complex number very near and possibly, but not necessarily, on the real axis [*]. (Therefore, (imag-part 2.0) => 0.) But that's just my 2/100+0i. _________ [*] the distinction between +0.0 and -0.0 here is left as an exercise... ---Vassil. -- Vassil Nikolov | Васил Николов | <vnikolov@x> "Be careful how you fix what you don't understand." (Brooks 2010, 185) _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*John Cowan <cowan@x>

**References**:**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*John Cowan <cowan@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*Sascha Ziemann <ceving@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*Mark H Weaver <mhw@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*Mark H Weaver <mhw@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*John Cowan <cowan@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*Mark H Weaver <mhw@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*John Cowan <cowan@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*Mark H Weaver <mhw@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*John Cowan <cowan@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*Mark H Weaver <mhw@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*John Cowan <cowan@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*Mark H Weaver <mhw@x>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0** - Next by Date:
**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0** - Previous by thread:
**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0** - Next by thread:
**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0** - Index(es):