On 1/24/2014 10:57 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Grant Edwards <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2014-01-24, Roy Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Chris Angelico <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Roy Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
Python 2.8j?
You're imagining things.
Get real... s'not gonna happen.
I wouldn't bet on that. The situation keeps getting tensor and
tensor.
I have a feeling there's a pun there based on the worlds "real" and
"tensor", but I don't have the math skills required to figure it out.
MRAB suggested "2.8j", which looks like another system of version
number (where you go 2.8, then 2.8a, 2.8b, etc etc), but is a pun on
the notation for imaginary/complex numbers. Hence Roy said "imagining"
things. I tried to call him back to "real" numbers (ones that don't
involve the letter j), and Roy remarked in a way that mentioned
tensors [1], which can represent complex numbers, but I've never dug
into all that myself, so I'll let him explain in more detail. I then
said (though you didn't quote me) that this was a "rational"
discussion until I suggested a version number involving e, which is
an irrational number (2.71828...), as is sqrt(8) which I also
mentioned at the same time (2.8284...).
I just violated [2]. Sorry.
ChrisA
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor
[2] http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DontExplainTheJoke
In this case, the explanation is as funny as the joke.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
