On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Rob Tompkins <chtom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 12, 2017, at 11:49 AM, Raymond DeCampo <r...@decampo.org> wrote: > > > > I still think that we should leave geometric concepts out of > > commons-numbers. > > Are we defining numbers using the fundamental theorem of Algebra? Maybe, > that’s what should go in core? > > Clearly that would leave out the quaternions, matrices (which have an > implicit geometrical bias), and other constructions out of numbers from the > Complex Field. > > It's less about what the definition of "number" is and more about setting some boundaries as to what belongs and what does not. Geometry is a convenient boundary in my eyes. If PlaneAngle belongs in numbers, shouldn't Plane from CM also belong? And if Plane is in, shouldn't Line be there? And so on and so on. It's tougher to draw the line (no pun intended) with PlaneAngle included. Matrices are not exclusively used in a geometric setting so I don't see a problem there.
