Re: complex numbers
- From: "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:36:53 GMT
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:uLfre.7177$7s.91@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Dear jem:
>
> "jem" <xxx@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:FVere.91014$sy6.84187@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > The TimeLord wrote:
> ...
> >> You can see that unless you keep straight just what
> >> the square root is defined to be,
> >
> > Sqrt() is defined to be a function so e.g. Sqrt(1) = 1,
> > not +-1, and of course i^2 = -1, not +-1.
>
> sqrt() may be defined by programming languages to be "the
> positive square root", allowing the programmer to assign whatever
> sign(s) the programmer chooses. But the result of the square
> root is bivalued
Well, point me to *one* single technical or engineering
publication or text in the world where they have an equation
where they mean anything other than 3 when they write sqrt(9),
and you are in business.
sqrt is the positive root of a positive number.
> (except for sqrt(0) ). sqrt(-1) is the
> conundrum, i^2 is the solution.
There is no such thing as sqrt(-1).
sqrt(-1) is for bad enceclopedias.
> And note that +/-i *is* a
> solution, and valid result.
Bot i and -i are things that give -1 when squared. You can
safely forget everything else.
Dirk Vdm
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: complex numbers
- From: The TimeLord
- Re: complex numbers
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Re: complex numbers
- From: The Ghost In The Machine
- Re: complex numbers
- References:
- complex numbers
- From: Don Giovanni
- Re: complex numbers
- From: The TimeLord
- Re: complex numbers
- From: jem
- Re: complex numbers
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- complex numbers
- Prev by Date: Re: Constancy of the Light Speed !
- Next by Date: Re: Imagine
- Previous by thread: Re: complex numbers
- Next by thread: Re: complex numbers
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|