complex numbers should respect the "I" representation

[narutocanada]

hi

I think complex numbers should respect the "i" or "I" representation,
instead of "j".
No reason being cute and using a different character instead of the
traditional representation? At least have the decency of supporting
the orginal representation?
Programmers use j as frequently as i as indexing variable, I see no
reason choosing "j" over "i". Have some respect for majority's rules.
This is childish.

[Ant]

On Jun 28, 1:48 pm, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

I think complex numbers should respect the "i" or "I" representation,
instead of "j".
No reason being cute and using a different character instead of the
traditional representation? At least have the decency of supporting
the orginal representation?

You're looking at this from a very narrow perspective. i is indeed the
common notation in the realm of mathematics. However, in the realm of
engineering, j is more common (i is used for current). So given that
both i and j are in common usage for denoting a complex number, and
that i is common for indexing, then j is a perfectly reasonable
notation for Python to use.

Programmers use j as frequently as i as indexing variable, I see no
reason choosing "j" over "i". Have some respect for majority's rules.
This is childish.

Do some research before flaming on a subject on which you only have
one side of the story.

--
Ant

[Mark Dickinson]

On Jun 28, 1:48*pm, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

hi

I think complex numbers should respect the "i" or "I" representation,
instead of "j".
No reason being cute and using a different character instead of the
traditional representation? At least have the decency of supporting
the orginal representation?
Programmers use j as frequently as i as indexing variable, I see no
reason choosing "j" over "i". Have some respect for majority's rules.
This is childish.

You could set "I = 1j" at the start of your scripts. Then you can
happily write your complex numbers in the form:

3+4*I

Mark

[Roy Smith]

In article
<6c**********************************@w1g2000prd.g ooglegroups.com>,
"na**********@gmail.com" <na**********@gmail.comwrote:

hi

I think complex numbers should respect the "i" or "I" representation,
instead of "j".
No reason being cute and using a different character instead of the
traditional representation?

Ask any electrical engineer what j means.

[Grant Edwards]

On 2008-06-29, Roy Smith <ro*@panix.comwrote:

>I think complex numbers should respect the "i" or "I"
representation, instead of "j". No reason being cute and using
a different character instead of the traditional
representation?

Ask any electrical engineer what j means.

And ask them what "I" means.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! HUGH BEAUMONT died
at in 1982!!
visi.com

[Lie]

On Jun 29, 8:39*pm, Grant Edwards <[e-mail]:

On 2008-06-29, Roy Smith <[e-mail]:

I think complex numbers should respect the "i" or "I"
representation, instead of "j". No reason being cute and using
a different character instead of the traditional
representation?

Ask any electrical engineer what j means.

And ask them what "I" means.

Ask an English-speaking man what "I" means, and I'm sure they'll
answer "I is not U".

A select few might understand what "i" means, while another select few
might understand what "j" means, but all of us understand what "I"
means.

[David C. Ullrich]

In article
<6c**********************************@w1g2000prd.g ooglegroups.com>,
"na**********@gmail.com" <na**********@gmail.comwrote:

hi

I think complex numbers should respect the "i" or "I" representation,
instead of "j".
No reason being cute and using a different character instead of the
traditional representation? At least have the decency of supporting
the orginal representation?
Programmers use j as frequently as i as indexing variable, I see no
reason choosing "j" over "i". Have some respect for majority's rules.

Yeah, I tried Python once, found it used "j" this way and
decided that Perl made a lot more sense.

This is childish.

erm, yes it is, for various values of "this"...

--
David C. Ullrich