[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NUMBERS-22?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16150397#comment-16150397
]
Bruno P. Kinoshita commented on NUMBERS-22:
-------------------------------------------
I think checking this case with an if would be fine, IMO. If we keep document
what it is doing, and specially if our behaviour is similar to other libraries,
then I don't see any issue :-)
> Method reciprocal() in Complex for complex numbers with parts very close to
> 0.0
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: NUMBERS-22
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NUMBERS-22
> Project: Commons Numbers
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Gunel Jahangirova
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 1.0
>
>
> I have been redirected here from the issue repository of Apache Commons Math,
> as the Complex class will likely be deprecated in favour of its equivalent in
> "Commons Numbers".
> In class Complex method reciprocal() returns INF only if the real and
> imaginary parts are exactly equal to 0.0. In the cases when real and
> imaginary parts are double numbers very close to 0.0, it does not hold. For
> example, if we run this code
> {code}
> Complex complex0 = new Complex((-2.44242319E-315));
> Complex complex1 = complex0.reciprocal();
> {code}
> the value of complex1.getReal() will be -Infinity and the value of
> complex1.getImaginary() will be NaN, instead of complex1 being equal to INF.
> The suggested solutions after the discussion are either checking the equality
> to ZERO with some tolerance or to detect if one of the real or imaginary
> parts is going to be infinite or NaN and then return the proper result.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
