On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 9:38:22 AM UTC+4, Chris Smith wrote: > > Something that seems a little counter-intuitive to me (having now worked > with the assumptions a bit) is the decision to let 2, I and 2 + I all be > considered complex >
I'm little surprised, what could be counter-intuitive here from the mathematical point of view? > It seems like it would be more useful to consider them be onlny real, > imaginary and complex, resepectively. > Some shortcuts for internal use may be convenient, however. E.g. Q.nonzero_imaginary or something. The way it is right now, the only way to say that something has a non-zero > real and imaginary part is to write it as a + I*b, e.g. ask(Q.real(I**(a + > I*b)), Q.real(a) & Q.real(b)) > But this does not mean a+I*b has a non-zero re/im parts! Also, consider some arithmetic, e.g. complex + complex != complex with your definition. By killing field properties - you complicate other things, I guess... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/98a6227e-cbd9-44e7-899f-3449e7f1b042%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
