Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Division of two complex numbers
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 13:56:19 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <vmmgq3$3e97a$6@dont-email.me>
References: <zMjaMvWZUkHX6SOb195JTQnVpSA@jntp>
 <XmWkVwNVTy8QHqeS0TsrPZNuk_c@jntp> <vmmden$3e97a$1@dont-email.me>
 <GKkg17e0FiGdEqKCQvNrtvN0OLY@jntp> <vmmdso$3e97a$2@dont-email.me>
 <q-ufmQf4sCFn4XF8BtUedW5gSA8@jntp> <vmmf64$3e97a$3@dont-email.me>
 <vmmfk9$3emg6$2@dont-email.me> <vmmg8s$3e97a$5@dont-email.me>
 <vmmgg5$3f4ok$1@dont-email.me> <ozaL8QC8SzBmz3Q43kJyx4bkO7U@jntp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 22:56:20 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f83ba5790de8b51aa60b613f63b035eb";
	logging-data="3613930"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/xR4Ti1UneIRZy+R9QCcFa2nedW1GHeiU="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HHAMz7QM7TzpNhZ4fPSxE36s6mw=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ozaL8QC8SzBmz3Q43kJyx4bkO7U@jntp>
Bytes: 2911

On 1/20/2025 1:52 PM, Python wrote:
> Le 20/01/2025 à 22:51, Moebius a écrit :
>> Am 20.01.2025 um 22:47 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
>>> On 1/20/2025 1:36 PM, Moebius wrote:
>>>> Am 20.01.2025 um 22:28 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
>>>>> On 1/20/2025 1:09 PM, Python wrote:
>>
>>>> Note though:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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*.
>>>>
>>>> See?!
>>>>
>>>> Your C code doesn't answer the latter "question".
>>>
>>> Sorry for missing something here. The division of complex numbers?
>>
>> You are missing what Python told you:
>>
>>       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* [i.e the usualy way --Moebius].
>>
>> Again:
>>
>>        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.
>>
>> See?!
>>
>> .
>> .
>> .
> 
> Maybe autistic syndrome?
> 
> 

Yikes! I totally missed that underlying point. Damn!

Sorry. Did Hachel present a new formula for it? I did not have time to 
read the whole thread. Again, sorry everybody!

;^o