ratepsilon



Hi David:

Yes, this "square" method would be better than the current situation, but it isn't as elegant as a "circular" method.

About 85% of my motivation was the "pure math" issue of how "best" to do it.  Now that I think I understand the problem, I'm more open to more engineering-oriented solutions.

At 10:32 AM 6/29/2012, David Stoutemyer wrote:
>How about:
> 
>If abs(im) < epsilon*abs(re) then rationalize(re)
>else if abs(re) < eplsilon*abs(im) then rationalize(im)*%i
>else rationalize re+im*%i
> 
>-- best regards, david stoutemyer
>
>On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 6:50 AM, Henry Baker <hbaker1 at pipeline.com> wrote:
>I want to "rationalize" a complex number, but I don't want to rationalize the real & imaginary parts separately, because this won't convert 1.0+%i*1.0e-10 into 1.
>
>ratepsilon isn't helping here.
>
>Any suggestions?
>
>Thanks in advance.