If it weren't against math conventions, I wouldn't mind seeing 1-i1 or 1/2+i2/3. But I am sure the people who produce Racket or Scheme or Lisp readers would hate me for that one, too. I think your students will need to cope, like all people who study sophisticated concepts (such as complex).
Anyone know how Mathematica copes? On Aug 6, 2012, at 6:05 PM, Todd O'Bryan wrote: > I just discovered that the way you enter (and display) a number like > > 1/2 + (2/3)i > > in Racket (and Scheme, presumably) is 1/2+2/3i. > > I understand why that is, and can't think of what else to do, but has > anyone had students get confused because the form looks like the i is > in the denominator of the imaginary part? > > What's more potentially confusing is that 1/2+2i/3 is a legal > identifier in its own right. > > I'm working on a program that models basic algebra in the way that > high school students are taught to do it, and one of my self-imposed > rules has been that "math should look like math." In other words, I'm > trying to minimize the conversion gymnastics that students have to put > up with when they enter math in calculators or computer programs. In > that spirit, I'm not sure if it would be better to allow the > inconsistency with the way order of operations normally works or just > have students enter 1/2+(2/3)i (or 1/2+2i/3, maybe) and do the > conversion behind the scenes. > > Anyone have any thoughts or prejudices one way or the other? > > Todd > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
