Wolfram http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=roots+x%5E2+%2B+2*x+%2B+10
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu>wrote: > > 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 > > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
