Hans Aberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on
"Rambling on numbers in Haskell"
>>> So, why not add a type "Complexify(R)" of a ring R to Haskell?
>>
>>Note that you can't divide in a ring. A type class *roughly* corresponding
>>to a ring is probably Num.
> Sure you can divide in a ring (in mathematics): Given an associative
> ring
> $R$ with an unit, define the set $R^\x$ (writing \x = \times) of
> elements with (two-sided) inverse. Then those can be divided.
> ...
divide_m - with Maybe a result,
divide, (/) - with possible error "..." break
make, for example, sense for Integer too, and to my mind, have to be
defined for all rings.
This is like solving of a linear equation.
Even do not mind that sometimes there are many solutions ...
Only for the Fields (say, Rational) they have better properties
(unique solution).
------------------
Sergey Mechveliani
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
