Leon Timmermans wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the value of having some
*arbitrary* predefined order for complex numbers. If people really
want to order their complex numbers, let them do it themselves in
whatever way they want.
Leon
I agree actually that Complex shouldn't have a pr
> "M" == Minimiscience writes:
M> Assuming that the last line should be "A ≥ B if a₁ > b₁ ...",
Indeed, yes. Is there a worse off-by-one typo than '<' vs '>'?
M> this is called lexicographic ordering,
Oh. Yes. Of course. Obviosuly. I should have noticed that and do not
know why I mis
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the value of having some
*arbitrary* predefined order for complex numbers. If people really
want to order their complex numbers, let them do it themselves in
whatever way they want.
Leon
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Darren Duncan wrote:
> I was actually th
I was actually thinking, during the previous thread involving Complex numbers
...
It may not have any practical use, but if one wanted to define an ordering for
complex numbers that was deterministic and relatively unbiased, a way to do this
would be based on what I'll call for now the "spiral
On Mar 28, 2010, at 3:09 PM, James Cloos wrote:
| Given A = a₁ + i·a₂ and B = b₁ + i·b₂, then:
|
| A ≤ B if a₁ < b₁ || ( a₁ == b₁ && a₂ ≤ b₂ )
| A ≥ B if a₁ < b₁ || ( a₁ == b₁ && a₂ ≥ b₂ )
Assuming that the last line should be "A ≥ B if a₁ > b₁ ...",
this is called lexicographic ordering, a
Some time ago there was a thread disucssing numeric ordering issues; the
fact that ℂ lacks an ordering was part of that discussion.
A recent paper on arxiv proposes inflicting an ordering on ℂ using:
,< excerpt from http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4906 >
|
| Given A = a₁ + i·a₂ and B = b₁ + i·b₂, t
