[r6rs-discuss] Complex <?

[Ken Dickey]

On Friday 24 October 2008 12:34:21 John Cowan wrote:
> Ken Dickey scripsit:
> > The naive reading (for a non-English speaker) would be that +2i is
> > somehow less real than +inf.0 .  8^)
>
> That's just what it is: less real -- in fact, not real at all.  Non-real
> numbers aren't magnitudes, and < does not and should not accept them
> as arguments.

Scheme seems to think so.E.g.:
  (magnitude 2+3i) => 3.605551275463989
  (magnitude +2i) => 2

This is just the distance to the origin (0,0) in 2space.  It is very well 
defined.

Without complex _numbers_ you can't do a lot of math (e.g. in electronics).  

Is the point 2+3i more real to you than +2i?  Are 2d points less real 
than "points on the number line"?

I think you made my point.  8^)

In 3space you can do even more!  ;^)
-KenD