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 Lichtso on Monday April 10, 2023 @10:10AM (#35512502)
You don't even need the complex part for this. You can do the infinity-projection trick on the real numbers alone as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projectively_extended_real_lin...

A similar trick (point at infinity or ideal point) is used in projective geometry to distinguish between directions (vectors) and places (points) by using coordinates only: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projective_geometry

But if you actually want to do calculations with infinities and infinitesimals the surreal numbers might be better suited for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_number

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why don't we define “imaginary” numbers for every “imposs... by zeroonetwothree on Monday April 10, 2023 @10:27AM (#35512731)
Downside is that now 0⋅∞ is undefined so you’ve introduced a new ‘impossibility’
[ Parent | on HN ]