Well, if we consistently treated (N1+N2*%i) as a 'number', then all sorts
of things would automatically simplify, regardless of the value of numer
and float, e.g. 2*(1+%i) => 2+2*%i, 2*(1.0+%i) => 2.0+1.0*%i (?), etc.
By the way, won't calling rectform within this case be an infinite
recursion? The problem came up within rectform/polarform.
-s
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Raymond Toy <toy.raymond at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Barton Willis <willisb at unk.edu> wrote:
>
>> The intent of
>>
>> (setq l ($expand l))
>> (cons l l))
>>
>> is to properly return (cons 0 0) or (cons 0.0 0.0), or ... Since 0 * 0.0
>> --> 0,
>>
>>
> An alternative: Change the test to call rectform. Not a great solution,
> but I think it's good enough for now.
>
> Perhaps it would also be beneficial if we could modify the simplifier so
> that if $numer or $float is true, we automatically simplify (x+%i*y)^(-1)
> to its equivalent rectform when x or y are floats. Then expand would
> probably work. the way you want.
>
> (I"ve always been annoyed that float((a+b*%i)/(c+d*%i)) always returned
> the same form when a,b,c,d were floats instead of the expected quotient.)
>
> Ray
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima at math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima
>
>