Re: Division of two complex numbers

On 1/20/2025 1:35 PM, Python wrote:

Le 20/01/2025 à 22:28, "Chris M. Thomasson" a écrit :

On 1/20/2025 1:09 PM, Python wrote:

Le 20/01/2025 à 22:06, "Chris M. Thomasson" a écrit :

On 1/20/2025 1:04 PM, Python wrote:

Le 20/01/2025 à 21:59, "Chris M. Thomasson" a écrit :

On 1/20/2025 12:51 PM, Python wrote:

Le 20/01/2025 à 21:44, "Chris M. Thomasson" a écrit :

On 1/20/2025 12:20 PM, Python wrote:

Le 20/01/2025 à 21:09, Tom Bola a écrit :

Am 20.01.2025 20:33:12 Moebius schrieb:
>

Am 20.01.2025 um 19:27 schrieb Python:

Le 20/01/2025 à 19:23, Richard Hachel  a écrit :

Le 20/01/2025 à 19:10, Python a écrit :

Le 20/01/2025 à 18:58, Richard Hachel  a écrit :

Mathematicians give:
>
z1/z2=[(aa'+bb')/(a'²+b'²)]+i[(ba'-ab')/(a'²+b'²)]
>
It was necessary to write:
z1/z2=[(aa'-bb')/(a'²-b'²)]+i[(ba'-ab')/(a'²-b'²)]

>

I've explained how i is defined in a positive way in modern algebra. i^2 = -1 is not a definition. It is a *property* that can be deduced from a definition of i.

>
 That is what I saw.
>
 Is not a definition.
 It doesn't explain why.
>
We have the same thing with Einstein and relativity.
>
[snip unrelated nonsense about your idiotic views on Relativity]

>

It is clear that i²=-1, but we don't say WHY. It is clear however that if i is both 1 and -1 (which gives two possible solutions) we can consider its square as the product of itself by its opposite, and vice versa.

>
I've posted a definition of i (which is NOT i^2 = -1) numerous times. A "positive" definition as you asked for.

>
I've already told this idiot:
>
Complex numbers can be defined as (ordered) pairs of real numbers.
>
Then we may define (in this context):
>
          i := (0, 1) .
>
 From this we get: i^2 = -1.

>
For R.H.
  By the binominal formulas we have: (a, b)^2 = a^2 + 2ab + b^2

>
Huh? This is not the binomial formula which is (a + b)^2 = a^2 + 2ab + b^2
>
(a, b)^2 does not mean anything without any additional definition/ context.
>

  So we get: (0, 1)^2 ) 0^2 + 2*(0 - 1) + 1 = 0 + (-2) + 1 = -1

>
you meant  (0, 1)^2 = 0^2 + 2*(0 - 1) + 1 = 0 + (-2) + 1 = -1 ?
>
This does not make sense without additional context.
>
In R(epsilon) = R[X]/X^2 (dual numbers a + b*epsilon where epsilon is such as
epsilon =/= 0 and epsilon^2 0) we do have :
>
(0, 1) ^ 2 = 0
>
>

>
vec2 ct_cmul(in vec2 p0, in vec2 p1)
{
     return vec2(p0.x * p1.x - p0.y * p1.y, p0.x * p1.y + p0.y * p1.x);
}

>
So what? This is not an application of the binomial formula...
>
What's you point?
>
>

>
It's a way I multiply two vectors together as if they are complex numbers.
>
Another one:
>
#define cx_mul(a, b) vec2(a.x*b.x - a.y*b.y, a.x*b.y + a.y*b.x)
>
I can pass in normal vectors to this in GLSL. vec2's

>
Good! You know how to write a C program. :-) (pun intended)

>
Fwiw, that is not is C, it's from one of my GLSL shaders. ;^)

>
It is also C.

>
No. GLSL is not C at all, it has a similar style, but is different for sure.

 It is exactly the same syntax. *facepalm*.
Ok, let's say so, if you wish, so you can implement complex multiplication in a GLSL shader.

No. C and GLSL are completely different languages. Have you ever even used GLSL? You can do fun things in GLSL that C cannot do at all.

 Again: SO WHAT? ? ? This is NOT THE POINT of the discussion.

I thought it might help the OP.

 

Again what's *your* point? Your posts makes absolutely no sense in the context of this thread!

>
Just a way to multiply two 2-ary vectors as if they were complex numbers. Now, here is a little C99 program I just typed in the newsreader. It should compile.
_____________________________
[snip irrelevant triviality]

 So what? ? ?

I thought it might help out the OP.

 In which way? ? ? Hachel didn't write that it cannot be done (he's not that silly), he claimed (wrongly) that it is the wrong way to define multiplication between complex numbers.
 

>
This is quite off-topic to point out that multiplication of complex numbers in C/C++ can be done.
>
The discussion is not about that it can be done, even crank Hachel would admit this. It is *why* it makes sense to define multiplication *that way*.