On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 2014-01-24, Roy Smith <r...@panix.com> wrote: >> In article <mailman.5927.1390530488.18130.python-l...@python.org>, >> Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Roy Smith <r...@panix.com> wrote: >>> >> Python 2.8j? >>> > >>> > You're imagining things. >>> >>> Get real... s'not gonna happen. >>> >> I wouldn't bet on that. The situation keeps getting tensor and >> tensor. > > I have a feeling there's a pun there based on the worlds "real" and > "tensor", but I don't have the math skills required to figure it out.
MRAB suggested "2.8j", which looks like another system of version number (where you go 2.8, then 2.8a, 2.8b, etc etc), but is a pun on the notation for imaginary/complex numbers. Hence Roy said "imagining" things. I tried to call him back to "real" numbers (ones that don't involve the letter j), and Roy remarked in a way that mentioned tensors [1], which can represent complex numbers, but I've never dug into all that myself, so I'll let him explain in more detail. I then said (though you didn't quote me) that this was a "rational" discussion until I suggested a version number involving e, which is an irrational number (2.71828...), as is sqrt(8) which I also mentioned at the same time (2.8284...). I just violated [2]. Sorry. ChrisA [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor [2] http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DontExplainTheJoke -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
