On 7/19/2013 4:06 PM, clipka wrote:
>
> I guess what he meant was that some
>
>    ComplexInfinity := an infinite that behaves much like a
>                       complex number, and possibly even has
>                       a representation of the form (a + bi)
>                       for some presumably weird choice of a,b
>
> Gives you
>
>    ComplexInfinity + ComplexInfinity = <undefined>
>

This is indeed what I meant by "complex infinity".  As far as I'm aware, 
it's not decomposable into the form a+bi where "a" and "b" are real, 
since doing so would require a "real infinity" which is distinct from 
the complex infinity (I mean, you probably *could* define such a thing, 
but I've never seen it done).

Good catch that Nekar was using "complex infinity" in a different way 
than I was thinking he was.

Post a reply to this message