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

Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0

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?


Scheme-reports mailing list