OK. Perhaps I'll give this a whirl. Any suggestions for a name for such a
type. ExtendedComplex or RiemannComplex seem too long, but CompleX (with
the "X" for extended) seems too cryptic.
On Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 10:02:19 AM UTC-6, tshort wrote:
>
> Speaking as someone who's also not a top-notch coder, it might be easier
> than you think. It's so easy to create types in Julia that with a few
> basics and some Googling, you can do quite a bit. You can also start small
> just to experiment.
>
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Ed Scheinerman <edward.sc...@gmail.com
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
>> Wow! Thanks everyone for the thoughtful replies. It seems that the way to
>> go is to create an alternative to Complex{T} types in which there is but a
>> single ComplexInfinity. This would be an interesting project but I'm not a
>> top-notch coder ... perhaps someone would like to take it on. When they do,
>> creating polynomial and rational function types that properly handle
>> complex infinity would be good too. That way f(x) =(2x-1)/(x+1) would
>> evaluate f(Inf) as 2. :-)
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, January 10, 2015 at 7:55:09 AM UTC-6, Ed Scheinerman wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there a way to have a single complex infinity? This may come at the
>>> cost of computational efficiency I suppose, but I can think of situations
>>> where all of the following give the same result:
>>>
>>> julia> (1+1im)/0
>>> Inf + Inf*im
>>>
>>> julia> 1im/0
>>> NaN + Inf*im
>>>
>>> julia> 1/0 + im
>>> Inf + 1.0im
>>>
>>> It would be nice (sometimes) if these were all the same ComplexInf, say.
>>> Perhaps there's an "extended complex numbers" module for this sort of work?
>>>
>>
>
