[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*: Sascha Ziemann <ceving@x>*Date*: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 17:26:24 +0100*In-reply-to*: <20121215160648.GA13463@mercury.ccil.org>*References*: <8738zc9g2x.fsf@tines.lan> <CAMMPzYOKcOm+trYA0Fc+NtWfG00K0BM4hvghsxrr6L9wnCyhuQ@mail.gmail.com> <87d2yf80q3.fsf@tines.lan> <20121214223854.GX29857@mercury.ccil.org> <CAGUt3y55KEVFn=6_i9yRXR8w_e8Nk2tN7QGCF8rEhYTs2Xgrjw@mail.gmail.com> <20121215160648.GA13463@mercury.ccil.org>

2012/12/15 John Cowan <cowan@x>: > Sascha Ziemann scripsit: >> 2012/12/14 John Cowan <cowan@x>: >> >> For example, this reversal means that (max 1.0+0.0i 1.0-0.0i) is >> >> permitted, and the result is no longer uniquely determined. >> >> What should the result be? >> > >> > I'd say it's correct to return either one, since they are =. >> >> Wolfram thinks it is neither the first nor the second: >> >> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=max+%281.0%2B0.0i%2C+1.0-0.0i%29 > > Wolfram, like Common Lisp, takes a structural view of complex numbers: > a number is complex just in case it has an imaginary part. What is the benefit not following Wolfram and CL? Sascha _______________________________________________ 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**:**[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:*Alex Shinn <alexshinn@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:*Sascha Ziemann <ceving@x>

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