That's right. But real numbers (or any subset) cannot be represented as imaginary numbers.
Ryan On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 01:09:24AM +0200, Janos Holanyi wrote: > Without imaginary parts, complexes do not cease being complex. > Complexes "Without imaginary parts" = x + 0*i. > So, every number (or the value represented by any mathematical expression) is > a > subset of complex numbers. Right or not? > > BR, > > Csan > > PS: there was a question regarding the Debian Center of Mass ignored before: > Was the weight of each Debian develper taken into account when calculating the > Center of Mass? > > > Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > > Hrm, I've just been told that an imaginary number is a complex number > > with > > > no real component. > > > > Well, you got me there. > > > > Interesting that a subset would define the set, eh? (ie, imaginaries > > are a subset of complexes, but without imaginary parts, complexes > > cease being complex and become merely real.) > > > > --Jas, wondering if "real" is the correct term > > > > > > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -- Ryan Golbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Computer Science University Of Waterloo GPG: 1024D/78916B84 1B1B 2A87 3F00 A7FB 40F3 526D 36CF BA44 7891 6B84
