News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why don't we define “imaginary” numbers for every “impossibility”? (2012). Parent comment

Re:Why don't we define “imaginary” numbers for every “imposs... by xigoi on Monday April 10, 2023 @09:34AM (#35512077)
This is assuming that Θ interacts with arithmetic operations the usual way (that is, ℝ ∪ {Θ} is a field), which the person you're replying to did not say.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why don't we define “imaginary” numbers for every “imposs... by afiori on Monday April 10, 2023 @10:22AM (#35512671)
True, but the point of giving a "value" to 0/0 is to use it somehow.

For example in the context of limits you define a whole lot of number like values like 0+ or 0- that are useful wrt operations on limits.

I was trying to give an example of how ℝ ∪ {Θ} has almost no advantages compared to just ℝ

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why don't we define “imaginary” numbers for every “imposs... by tshaddox on Monday April 10, 2023 @05:31PM (#35517644)
Sure, but the whole "problem" we were trying to solve was that zero doesn't interact with arithmetic operations the usual way.
[ Parent | on HN ]