On 1/24/07, Gareth McCaughan <gareth.mccaughan at pobox.com> wrote: > > > >>> complex(complex(1.0, 2.0), complex(10.0, 20.0)) > > > > (-19+12j) > > > > WTF? In any case, that's also what's destroying the sign of the > > imaginary part in complex(1.0, -0.0). > > It seems pretty clear what it thinks it's doing -- namely, > defining complex(a,b) = a + ib even when a,b are complex. > And half of why it does that is clear: you want complex(a)=a > when a is complex. Why b should be allowed to be complex too, > though, it's hard to imagine. I think that's the right thing to do, because that is mathematically correct. j is just an imaginary number with a property that j*j = -1. So (a+bj) + (c+dj)j = (a-d) + (b+c)j. Complex numbers are not just magic pairs with two numbers and have actual mathematical rules. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20070124/3e327604/attachment.htm
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4