[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: should Positive[ complexNumber ] return undefined instead of False?
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg112631] Re: should Positive[ complexNumber ] return undefined instead of False?
*From*: Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl>
*Date*: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 04:41:07 -0400 (EDT)
*References*: <201009210604.CAA25100@smc.vnet.net>
On 21 Sep 2010, at 08:04, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>
> math experts:
>
> x = 3*I;
> Positive[x]
>
> Out[59]= False
>
> Should this be undefined or unevaluated?
>
> If it is False, when there must be an case when it is True, right? but
> there is not such case, positive and negative are not defined on the
> complex numbers, or Am I missing something?
Note that
Through[{Positive, Negative}[I]]
{False,False}
In other words, I is neither positive nor negative.
>
> I know the above works as documented:
>
> "Positive[x] gives False if x is manifestly a negative numerical
> quantity, a complex numerical quantity, or zero. Otherwise, it remains
> unevaluated"
>
> So, my question is just wanting to know why when Mathematica was
> designed, the complexes were not added to the case where they remains
> unevaluated in this case?
Well, I think the "philosophy" is to return an expression of the form Positive[x] unevaluated so that it can later return a value when x is assigned a value. I.e.
Positive[x] /. x -> 2
True
But obviously this makes no sense in this case of I since you can't =
assign values to I and even:
Unevaluated[Positive[I]] /. I -> 2
False
So the answer, in my opinion, is that, wether logically justified or =
not, returning Positive[I] unevaluated would have no practical use =
hence it is not done.
Andrzej Kozlowski
Prev by Date:
**Re: Question on defaults in positional arguments**
Next by Date:
**Re: Using Mathematica remotely (installed on Mac, to be accessed**
Previous by thread:
**should Positive[ complexNumber ] return undefined instead of False?**
Next by thread:
**Summing above diagonal in a tensor**
| |