Re: [Scheme-reports] Numerical example (real? -2.5+0.0i)

[Andre van Tonder <andre@x>]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, John Cowan wrote:

> Aubrey Jaffer scripsit:
>
>> Algebraically, the complex numbers are the field of reals extended by
>> a solution of x^2+1=0.  All reals are complex; there is no difference
>> between real 2.0 and 2.0+0.0i.
>
> I used the term "general complex number" in the same sense it is used
> in R5RS, to mean a number whose imaginary part is nonzero.

If the term "general" is still used in R7RS to refer to a /proper subset/ of the 
complex numbers (haven't done a search), I would say that this is a confusing 
usage and should probably be changed.  To most people, "general" does not mean a 
proper subset.

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports