D  abs property for creal?
 John Reimer (21/21) Mar 07 2003 Another question for the group:
 John Reimer (7/15) Mar 07 2003 is
 Sean L. Palmer (23/42) Mar 08 2003 So you're saying it should be
 John Reimer (22/42) Mar 08 2003 Yes. That was what I was trying to say. :)
 Mike Wynn (16/38) Mar 08 2003 you
 John Reimer (29/39) Mar 08 2003 to
 Mike Wynn (14/19) Mar 08 2003 that's me not thinking forgot the root. got confused should have been
 John Reimer (12/32) Mar 08 2003 Ah, I see now.
 Sean L. Palmer (33/75) Mar 09 2003 Sorry I came off as "belittling". Not my intention. I was mainly point...
 Bill Cox (14/40) Mar 09 2003 If it helps, I think you've got a reasonable point of view. I'm a bit
 John Reimer (26/26) Mar 07 2003 I'm having another problem. I cannot figure out how to construct a comp...
 Walter (3/5) Apr 14 2003 I'm interested. Please post or email it to me. Thanks, Walter
 John Reimer (8/18) Apr 17 2003 Hi Walter,
 John Reimer (6/35) Apr 17 2003 Ok,
 Walter (1/1) Apr 18 2003 Got it. Thanks!
 Jon Allen (22/43) Mar 08 2003 I'm not sure how the creal is represented in memory, but assuming it's j...
 John Reimer (30/49) Mar 08 2003 just
 Jon Allen (10/36) Mar 09 2003 Eh, don't I feel stupid, seems like something a young math major should ...
 John Reimer (8/10) Mar 09 2003 know
 Burton Radons (9/27) Mar 08 2003 It's syntactually correct, but better is:
 John Reimer (8/19) Mar 08 2003 minimisation.
 Burton Radons (4/16) Mar 08 2003 Yeah, it's a large set of routines that Pavel Minayev wrote. It should
 Walter (5/21) Apr 14 2003 it
 John Reimer (6/36) Apr 17 2003 Great!

Walter
(3/5)
Apr 18 2003
I'm waay behind
.  Olaf Rogalsky (48/50) Mar 10 2003 Hello Burton,
 John Reimer (9/46) Mar 10 2003 Well, that sums up the needs quite nicely :). Nice to have an expert g...
 Olaf Rogalsky (16/18) Mar 10 2003 Well, aehem, ..., I sometimes have the feeling that Sean Palmer only
 John Reimer (22/32) Mar 10 2003 Oh yes, now I see. True, true. I was so caught up in arguing my points...
Another question for the group: There doesn't appear to be an abs() method for types creal. I know this is a very simple function and done by hand easily enough such as: import math; /* no errors caught here */ real abs( creal c) { return sqrt( c.re*c.re + c.im*c.im); } I don't know if this is correct (casting to real necessary in sqrt function?) since I'm very much a beginner with D. Nevertheless, it would be nice to have maybe a property of creals that renders the "abs" value just like the properties "re" and "im". Is this possible? if there are properties: .re .im then the property: .abs is equivalent to the above function. might also be useful. :) Thanks, John
Mar 07 2003
"John Reimer" <jjreimer telus.net> wrote in message news:b4bhe6$2lfa$1 digitaldaemon.com...Another question for the group: There doesn't appear to be an abs() method for types creal. I know thisisa very simple function and done by hand easily enough such as: import math; /* no errors caught here */ real abs( creal c) { return sqrt( c.re*c.re + c.im*c.im); }I just realized the above is not quite correct since c.im*c.im would render the 1. The proper calculation drops the imaginary i first. Please disregard that :P.  John
Mar 07 2003
So you're saying it should be return sqrt( c.re*c.re  c.im*c.im ); hehe This is true for any numeric array type: float x[3]; return sqrt(x[0]*x[0] + x[1]*x[1] + x[2]*x[2]); // calculate magnitude of vector It's pythagoras' theorem for christ's sake... one of the most fundamental constructs in all of math. Nowadays it's usually called the vector norm or the magnitude, but abs works as well. Length would be another good word for it. I would like to have a standard library template function to compute it. I am not sure it's a good idea for this kind of thing to be a property, because then when you write a template that takes unknown types and gets its abs, it's not possible to make every type have an abs property. There is confusion between member function call syntax and property get syntax. It *is* however possible to make a global overloaded function that takes one of your types as an argument, so that appears to be the correct approach; the one with the least limitations. Sean "John Reimer" <jjreimer telus.net> wrote in message news:b4bk8j$2mvh$1 digitaldaemon.com..."John Reimer" <jjreimer telus.net> wrote in message news:b4bhe6$2lfa$1 digitaldaemon.com...renderAnother question for the group: There doesn't appear to be an abs() method for types creal. I know thisisa very simple function and done by hand easily enough such as: import math; /* no errors caught here */ real abs( creal c) { return sqrt( c.re*c.re + c.im*c.im); }I just realized the above is not quite correct since c.im*c.im wouldthe 1. The proper calculation drops the imaginary i first. Please disregard that :P.  John
Mar 08 2003
"Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer directvinternet.com> wrote in message news:b4dits$mue$1 digitaldaemon.com...So you're saying it should be return sqrt( c.re*c.re  c.im*c.im ); heheYes. That was what I was trying to say. :)This is true for any numeric array type: float x[3]; return sqrt(x[0]*x[0] + x[1]*x[1] + x[2]*x[2]); // calculate magnitude of vector It's pythagoras' theorem for christ's sake... one of the most fundamental constructs in all of math. Nowadays it's usually called the vector normorthe magnitude, but abs works as well. Length would be another good wordforit.Hmm.. I have no idea what Christ has to do with it... but, yes, it is a basic distance equation also called the pythagorean theorem. I'm sorry you felt you had to point that basic concept out. However, my only concern here was dealing with the complex aspect of it, and whether or not there was the basic abs function available. I was not really concerned as to whether people could identify it's origin. Perhaps I misjudged your manner here. I am new to the list and perhaps should not have presumed to ask these questions until I was better acquainted with the people here or at least they were better acquainted with me.I would like to have a standard library template function to compute it. I am not sure it's a good idea for this kind of thing to be a property, because then when you write a template that takes unknown types and getsitsabs, it's not possible to make every type have an abs property. There is confusion between member function call syntax and property get syntax. It *is* however possible to make a global overloaded function that takes oneofyour types as an argument, so that appears to be the correct approach;theone with the least limitations. SeanGood point. I'm not extrememely knowledgeable as to language design practice; right now it's more "get the job done." But you seem to know what you're talking about. Thanks for your time, John
Mar 08 2003
ofThis is true for any numeric array type: float x[3]; return sqrt(x[0]*x[0] + x[1]*x[1] + x[2]*x[2]); // calculate magnitudefundamentalvector It's pythagoras' theorem for christ's sake... one of the mostyouconstructs in all of math. Nowadays it's usually called the vector normorthe magnitude, but abs works as well. Length would be another good wordforit.Hmm.. I have no idea what Christ has to do with it... but, yes, it is a basic distance equation also called the pythagorean theorem. I'm sorryfelt you had to point that basic concept out. However, my only concernherewas dealing with the complex aspect of it, and whether or not there wasthebasic abs function available. I was not really concerned as to whether people could identify it's origin. Perhaps I misjudged your manner here.Iam new to the list and perhaps should not have presumed to ask these questions until I was better acquainted with the people here or at least they were better acquainted with me.I think the point was that the usual (an accepted) name of the functions you call abs is magnitude, modulus or norm depending on the item and if your a mathmation or engineer (j not i) is there a mathmatical 'abs' for a complex number, quaternion, vector, matrix ? I though it was just reals that had an abs; a vector abs I would expect to abs the elements not return magnitude. does D have a conjugate property for complex ? magnitude ::= a * a.conjugate; // (a+ib)*(aib) = a*a + b*b;
Mar 08 2003
I think the point was that the usual (an accepted) name of the functionsyoucall abs is magnitude, modulus or norm depending on the item and if your amathmationor engineer (j not i) is there a mathmatical 'abs' for a complex number, quaternion, vector, matrix ? I though it was just reals that had an abs; a vector abs I would expecttoabs the elements not return magnitude. does D have a conjugate property for complex ? magnitude ::= a * a.conjugate; // (a+ib)*(aib) = a*a + b*b;True, the engineering notation for 'i' is actually 'j'. But it really makes no difference other than convention.. I'm not an expert on these matters, but I do use the features of complex numbers in my electronics studies. The "abs" moniker was not my choice. It was just the convention I noticed that is used for getting the magnitude of a complex number (Python uses it too). As far as I see, abs is fairly standard use for deriving this value when it comes to complex numbers. So my point is that "abs" IS the usual and accepted name for this funciton no matter what it's meaning or name is in other number sets or systems. This is actually the standard mathematical definition of the "absolute value of the complex number": "The modulus or absolute value of a complex number a + bi is  a + bi  = sqrt( a*a + b*b) from A Second Course in Calculus, ISBN 0122596625 Now this may be a fairly basic "length" expression as Sean mentioned, but it seems that people got confused over the use of the term "absolute value" in complex speech. Sean's tone appeared slightly belittling, thus my response. I really hate to beat this topic to death, but I just wanted to verify that abs is actually very much the correct mathematical term for this value. As for use of "abs" for quaternion's, 3D vectors or whatnot, I'm not sure if they share the idea of "abs" for obtaining the magnitude. I'm sure there's a few such experts in this group anyway so I needn't speculate. A conjugate property would be another useful addition; I agree. But I don't understand your use of the term magnitude here. Later, John
Mar 08 2003
magnitude ::= a * a.conjugate; // (a+ib)*(aib) = a*a + b*b;A conjugate property would be another useful addition; I agree. But Idon'tunderstand your use of the term magnitude here.that's me not thinking forgot the root. got confused should have been if n = (a+ib) n = sqrt(a^2 +b^2) => n = sqrt( n * conjugate(n) ) if vector v = {a,b} v = sqrt(a^2 +b^2) => v = sqrt( v dot v ) I was reading something on 3d vectors that used v to mean v.v and v to mean sqrt(v.v) last week. anyway what about polar form of complex ? n = (a +ib) = r * (e to_the_power (i*arg)) = n (e to_the_power (i*arc_tan(y/x))) isn't that as important a part of complex maths as the a+ib form so creal should have a .magnitude and .arg property anyway.
Mar 08 2003
"Mike Wynn" <mike.wynn l8night.co.uk> wrote in message news:b4ecf8$12f7$1 digitaldaemon.com...Ah, I see now.magnitude ::= a * a.conjugate; // (a+ib)*(aib) = a*a + b*b;A conjugate property would be another useful addition; I agree. But Idon'tunderstand your use of the term magnitude here.that's me not thinking forgot the root. got confused should have beenif n = (a+ib) n = sqrt(a^2 +b^2) => n = sqrt( n * conjugate(n) ) if vector v = {a,b} v = sqrt(a^2 +b^2) => v = sqrt( v dot v ) I was reading something on 3d vectors that used v to mean v.v and v to mean sqrt(v.v) last week.I haven't investigate 3D vectors to deeply, but natrually 2D vector math and complex phasor math are understandably similar. They're just mapped to different "spaces.", and have there own associated rules. To be honest, I'm not familiar with the double bar notation with vectors. Interesting.anyway what about polar form of complex ? n = (a +ib) = r * (e to_the_power (i*arg)) = n (e to_the_power (i*arc_tan(y/x))) isn't that as important a part of complex maths as the a+ib form so creal should have a .magnitude and .arg property anyway.Yes, you bet; polar form is just as important. Polar form a la Euler , 'abs' and 'arg' properties, should be available to make the complex type more complete. Later, John
Mar 08 2003
Sorry I came off as "belittling". Not my intention. I was mainly pointing out the lack of such basic vector algebra functions in D, and the limiting focus on complex numbers to the exclusion of the more general case of arbitrary dimension vectors. I've seen the term "abs" used before to describe vector norm, and in fact it makes perfect sense (mapping functions of reals over higherorder vectors); just in my line of work most people use the word "norm" or "magnitude". I either want A) quaternions and 3d vectors included as basic types in D or B) complex to be removed to the standard library and applications programmers given the ability to do everything that complex does now. This is very close to being implemented already; the one thing lacking is that we cannot make new types such as "imaginary". Also there's no way we can do so with the same performance characteristics (especially in builds without inlining) that builtin types have. I think I've beat this horse to death already. My words seem to be falling on deaf ears. Sean "John Reimer" <jjreimer telus.net> wrote in message news:b4e743$vuj$1 digitaldaemon.com...makesI think the point was that the usual (an accepted) name of the functionsyoucall abs is magnitude, modulus or norm depending on the item and if your amathmationor engineer (j not i) is there a mathmatical 'abs' for a complex number, quaternion, vector, matrix ? I though it was just reals that had an abs; a vector abs I would expecttoabs the elements not return magnitude. does D have a conjugate property for complex ? magnitude ::= a * a.conjugate; // (a+ib)*(aib) = a*a + b*b;True, the engineering notation for 'i' is actually 'j'. But it reallyno difference other than convention.. I'm not an expert on these matters, but I do use the features of complex numbers in my electronics studies.The"abs" moniker was not my choice. It was just the convention I noticedthatis used for getting the magnitude of a complex number (Python uses ittoo).As far as I see, abs is fairly standard use for deriving this value whenitcomes to complex numbers. So my point is that "abs" IS the usual and accepted name for this funciton no matter what it's meaning or name is in other number sets or systems. This is actually the standard mathematical definition of the "absolute value of the complex number": "The modulus or absolute value of a complex number a + bi is  a + bi  = sqrt( a*a + b*b) from A Second Course in Calculus, ISBN 0122596625 Now this may be a fairly basic "length" expression as Sean mentioned, butitseems that people got confused over the use of the term "absolute value"incomplex speech. Sean's tone appeared slightly belittling, thus myresponse.I really hate to beat this topic to death, but I just wanted to verifythatabs is actually very much the correct mathematical term for this value. As for use of "abs" for quaternion's, 3D vectors or whatnot, I'm not sureifthey share the idea of "abs" for obtaining the magnitude. I'm surethere'sa few such experts in this group anyway so I needn't speculate. A conjugate property would be another useful addition; I agree. But Idon'tunderstand your use of the term magnitude here. Later, John
Mar 09 2003
Sean L. Palmer wrote:Sorry I came off as "belittling". Not my intention. I was mainly pointing out the lack of such basic vector algebra functions in D, and the limiting focus on complex numbers to the exclusion of the more general case of arbitrary dimension vectors. I've seen the term "abs" used before to describe vector norm, and in fact it makes perfect sense (mapping functions of reals over higherorder vectors); just in my line of work most people use the word "norm" or "magnitude". I either want A) quaternions and 3d vectors included as basic types in D or B) complex to be removed to the standard library and applications programmers given the ability to do everything that complex does now. This is very close to being implemented already; the one thing lacking is that we cannot make new types such as "imaginary". Also there's no way we can do so with the same performance characteristics (especially in builds without inlining) that builtin types have. I think I've beat this horse to death already. My words seem to be falling on deaf ears. SeanIf it helps, I think you've got a reasonable point of view. I'm a bit more of a minimalist than Walter. I would have kept out many of the features he's incorporated, including support for complex numbers, even though I sometimes use them in programming. I fault C++ for wasting years of the industry's time while compiler writers worked on implementing the standard. I don't yet have the D compiler on my Linux system (I'm waiting for the GNU tiein), but from the spec, it seems able to support both complex numbers and vectors in standard libraries. However, there will always be a speed penalty for addons like this. Also, you wont get any cool custom syntax for it. What can you do? No language can be all things to all people. Bill
Mar 09 2003
I'm having another problem. I cannot figure out how to construct a complex expression legally... The last I tried caused the compiler to crash: Internal error: ..\ztc\cg87.c 1219 .. Basic complex expressions are easy like: creal a = 1.0 + 2.0i; But I cannot create an expression like this (which are important in circuit calculations): creal Z1; Z1 = (1/R1) + (2.0i*PI*F*(C1+C2)); where R1, PI, F, C1 and C2 are all "real." As you can see I tried putting the imaginary 'i' next to one of the values in an attempt to force that side of the expression to be imaginary. Didn't work... I also tried putting the i at the end of the expression... Didn't work either (compiler complains in this case of undefined i). The above expression seems to crash the compiler. Casting the imaginary portion of the above expression to 'ireal' doesn't seem to work either. So how do I make a proper complex expression with more complicated subexpressions. Python does it this way... Z1 = complex(1/R1, (2.0*pi*F*(C1+C2)) which works just fine... The short program listing is available if anyone is interested to see why the compiler crashed... Thanks, John
Mar 07 2003
"John Reimer" <jjreimer telus.net> wrote in message news:b4bnbb$2oe8$1 digitaldaemon.com...The short program listing is available if anyone is interested to see why the compiler crashed...I'm interested. Please post or email it to me. Thanks, Walter
Apr 14 2003
Walter wrote:"John Reimer" <jjreimer telus.net> wrote in message news:b4bnbb$2oe8$1 digitaldaemon.com...Hi Walter, Um, I should say was available... A major computer malfunction several weeks ago has left me without the source, though I should be able to cook up the problem again for you. I'll see if I can get some source up in the next few days... Thanks, JohnThe short program listing is available if anyone is interested to see why the compiler crashed...I'm interested. Please post or email it to me. Thanks, Walter
Apr 17 2003
John Reimer wrote:Walter wrote:Ok, Rebuilt and sent. I used D compiler 0.61. Hope that helps. John"John Reimer" <jjreimer telus.net> wrote in message news:b4bnbb$2oe8$1 digitaldaemon.com...Hi Walter, Um, I should say was available... A major computer malfunction several weeks ago has left me without the source, though I should be able to cook up the problem again for you. I'll see if I can get some source up in the next few days... Thanks, JohnThe short program listing is available if anyone is interested to see why the compiler crashed...I'm interested. Please post or email it to me. Thanks, Walter
Apr 17 2003
I'm not sure how the creal is represented in memory, but assuming it's just two 80 bit floats (IEEE 754, or whatever the standard is) right next to eachother, and assuming the comiler won't cry foul if you try to treat a pointer as an array (it works in C, i'm not sure about D) you could save a LOT of processor time doing something like this: creal abs(creal c) { ubyte* cbytes=cast(byte*)&c; //this gives the absolute value of the real part (i'm guessing) cbytes[9]&=0x7F; //this gives the absolute value of the imaginary part (i'm guessing) cbytes[19]&=0x7F; return c; } Of course this isn't portable at all and there are probably assembly instructions that would do it for you, but I don't know them. You could also just do a test, if it's less than zero then multiply by 1, that would still be portable and leagues faster just because square roots are even slower than multiplication. "John Reimer" <jjreimer telus.net> wrote in message news:b4bhe6$2lfa$1 digitaldaemon.com...Another question for the group: There doesn't appear to be an abs() method for types creal. I know thisisa very simple function and done by hand easily enough such as: import math; /* no errors caught here */ real abs( creal c) { return sqrt( c.re*c.re + c.im*c.im); } I don't know if this is correct (casting to real necessary in sqrt function?) since I'm very much a beginner with D. Nevertheless, it would be nice to have maybe a property of creals that renders the "abs" value just like the properties "re" and "im". Is this possible? if there are properties: .re .im then the property: .abs is equivalent to the above function. might also be useful. :) Thanks, John
Mar 08 2003
"Jon Allen" <jallen minotstateu.edu> wrote in message news:b4cbfn$r9$1 digitaldaemon.com...I'm not sure how the creal is represented in memory, but assuming it'sjusttwo 80 bit floats (IEEE 754, or whatever the standard is) right next to eachother, and assuming the comiler won't cry foul if you try to treat a pointer as an array (it works in C, i'm not sure about D) you could save a LOT of processor time doing something like this: creal abs(creal c) { ubyte* cbytes=cast(byte*)&c; //this gives the absolute value of the real part (i'm guessing) cbytes[9]&=0x7F; //this gives the absolute value of the imaginary part (i'm guessing) cbytes[19]&=0x7F; return c; } Of course this isn't portable at all and there are probably assembly instructions that would do it for you, but I don't know them. You could also just do a test, if it's less than zero then multiply by 1, thatwouldstill be portable and leagues faster just because square roots are even slower than multiplication.Ok, thanks for the tip, Jon. I only wish it were that simple. I assumed that since the language provided complex numbers that everything would be ready to go as far as manipulating them was concerned. I guess not quite yet or maybe I just don't know how it's supposed to work. But I think your solution is not quite what I was getting at. The "abs" as in absolute value is not the typical mathematical absolute value when complex numbers are concerned. Perhaps you were thinking that I wanted the nonnegative values of both real and imaginary parts? . Not so I'm afraid... I'm looking for the resultant magnitude of a complex pair (also referred as the absolute value in complex math for some weird reason) which is the pythagorean sum of the real and imaginary parts, or the squareroot of the sum of the squares of the magnitudes of the real and imaginary parts (phew, what a mouthful). Complex numbers are used in electronics AC analysis and are often called phasors. They are also represented in polar form in which case the complex parts are converted to a magnitude (abs) and a relative phase angle. It becomes necessary to convert between formats now and again. As far as the lowlevel optimization goes, that's not really my concern yet... I just want it to work :P. The implementor of the language's complex numbers should do those optimizations for me, I think :). I guess I still have to figure out how to do all this in D. Python does it seamlessly and provides all the necessary methods out of the box. D must not be there yet... :) Oh well, it's a neat language, still. Thanks for the suggestion though; that's some pretty slick D hacking. :) Later, John.
Mar 08 2003
Eh, don't I feel stupid, seems like something a young math major should know doesn't it? That's what I get for trying to be too clever I guess. :) "John Reimer" <jjreimer telus.net> wrote in message news:b4ch6i$5o6$1 digitaldaemon.com...Ok, thanks for the tip, Jon. I only wish it were that simple. I assumed that since the language provided complex numbers that everything would be ready to go as far as manipulating them was concerned. I guess not quite yet or maybe I just don't know how it's supposed to work. But I think your solution is not quite what I was getting at. The "abs"asin absolute value is not the typical mathematical absolute value when complex numbers are concerned. Perhaps you were thinking that I wantedthenonnegative values of both real and imaginary parts? . Not so I'm afraid... I'm looking for the resultant magnitude of a complex pair (also referred as the absolute value in complex math for some weird reason) which is the pythagorean sum of the real and imaginary parts, orthesquareroot of the sum of the squares of the magnitudes of the real and imaginary parts (phew, what a mouthful). Complex numbers are used in electronics AC analysis and are often called phasors. They are also represented in polar form in which case the complex parts are converted toamagnitude (abs) and a relative phase angle. It becomes necessary toconvertbetween formats now and again. As far as the lowlevel optimization goes, that's not really my concern yet... I just want it to work :P. The implementor of the language's complex numbers should do those optimizations for me, I think :). I guess I still have to figure out how to do all this in D. Python doesitseamlessly and provides all the necessary methods out of the box. D must not be there yet... :) Oh well, it's a neat language, still. Thanks for the suggestion though; that's some pretty slick D hacking. :) Later, John.
Mar 09 2003
"Jon Allen" <jallen minotstateu.edu> wrote in message news:b4f0j5$1d4u$1 digitaldaemon.com...Eh, don't I feel stupid, seems like something a young math major shouldknowdoesn't it? That's what I get for trying to be too clever I guess. :):D No problem. That just happened to be one of the very few areas that I knew something of what I was talking about :). Later, John
Mar 09 2003
John Reimer wrote:Another question for the group: There doesn't appear to be an abs() method for types creal. I know this is a very simple function and done by hand easily enough such as: import math; /* no errors caught here */ real abs( creal c) { return sqrt( c.re*c.re + c.im*c.im); } I don't know if this is correct (casting to real necessary in sqrt function?) since I'm very much a beginner with D.It's syntactually correct, but better is: real abs(creal c) { return math2.hypot(c.re, c.im); } As sqrt uses double, and hypot can do some overflow/underflow minimisation.Nevertheless, it would be nice to have maybe a property of creals that renders the "abs" value just like the properties "re" and "im". Is this possible?Yes, and it should be in. Feedback on what users of complex need is valuable, as there aren't many serious users of it here. Don't expect anything in the near future, however.
Mar 08 2003
It's syntactually correct, but better is: real abs(creal c) { return math2.hypot(c.re, c.im); } As sqrt uses double, and hypot can do some overflow/underflowminimisation. That does look good :). But I've never seen a math2 module before. Is it now part of phobos?Thanks, I understand what you're saying. Just checking to see if there were some answers that I didn't know about yet. Thanks for your response, Burton. Much appreciated. Later, JohnNevertheless, it would be nice to have maybe a property of creals that renders the "abs" value just like the properties "re" and "im". Is this possible?Yes, and it should be in. Feedback on what users of complex need is valuable, as there aren't many serious users of it here. Don't expect anything in the near future, however.
Mar 08 2003
John Reimer wrote:Yeah, it's a large set of routines that Pavel Minayev wrote. It should probably be merged with math. For your later concern, this is how Python implements complex abs.It's syntactually correct, but better is: real abs(creal c) { return math2.hypot(c.re, c.im); } As sqrt uses double, and hypot can do some overflow/underflowminimisation. That does look good :). But I've never seen a math2 module before. Is it now part of phobos?
Mar 08 2003
"Burton Radons" <loth users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message news:b4eavm$11s2$1 digitaldaemon.com...John Reimer wrote:itIt's syntactually correct, but better is: real abs(creal c) { return math2.hypot(c.re, c.im); } As sqrt uses double, and hypot can do some overflow/underflowminimisation. That does look good :). But I've never seen a math2 module before. IsIt's now in math.hypot. Also, math.hypot handles all the overflow/underflow cases correctly.now part of phobos?Yeah, it's a large set of routines that Pavel Minayev wrote. It should probably be merged with math. For your later concern, this is how Python implements complex abs.
Apr 14 2003
Walter wrote:"Burton Radons" <loth users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message news:b4eavm$11s2$1 digitaldaemon.com...Great! I almost missed these posts. I didn't realize you would respond to stuff so far back ;). Thanks, JohnJohn Reimer wrote:itIt's syntactually correct, but better is: real abs(creal c) { return math2.hypot(c.re, c.im); } As sqrt uses double, and hypot can do some overflow/underflowminimisation. That does look good :). But I've never seen a math2 module before. IsIt's now in math.hypot. Also, math.hypot handles all the overflow/underflow cases correctly.now part of phobos?Yeah, it's a large set of routines that Pavel Minayev wrote. It should probably be merged with math. For your later concern, this is how Python implements complex abs.
Apr 17 2003
"John Reimer" <jjreimer telus.net> wrote in message news:b7n8ij$19lt$2 digitaldaemon.com...I almost missed these posts. I didn't realize you would respond to stuff so far back ;).I'm waay behind <g>.
Apr 18 2003
Burton Radons wrote:Yes, and it should be in. Feedback on what users of complex need is valuable, as there aren't many serious users of it here. Don't expectHello Burton, First of all, a little rant. When thinking about complex numbers, please don't confuse them with vectors. You can't multply vectors*, but you CAN multiply complex numbers. As a physisist I am permanently using complex numbers. There is nothing complex or imaginary about them. They are just numbers, but numbers where you don't need to care when taking roots. Here is what I would like to see: 1) I don't see much use for a purely imaginary type, drop it! 2) I don't see much use for integer complex types, don't include it! 3) Properties: z := re + im*I, and x a real number z.abs() sqrt(re*re+im*im) z.abs2() re*re+im*im z.arg() atan2(re, im) z.phase() z/z.abs() z.re() re z.im() im*I z.rim() im z.conj() reim*I z.I() z*I = im + re*I I don't care about the given names, as long as they are short :). 4) Functions on complex: Basic builtin: +, , *, /, sqr := z*z, inv := 1/z, scalar(z1, z2) := z1.conj()*z2 Library: exp, cos, sin, tan, cosh, sinh, tanh ln, acos, asin, atan, acosh, asinh, atanh, pow(z1, z2), log(z1, z2), sqrt 5) Constructors: z = creal(re, im); z = creal.polar(modulus, argument); The distinction between properties and functions is somewhat arbitrary. In my eyes, a property shall return some known information about the variable, but what is known depends on the implementation of that variable (e.g., wether the compiler stores complex numbers in cartesian or polar format). One can argue with good reasons to move some of the above properties to the functions section. I have no objections against doing so. Greetings, Olaf *) At least, if you don't think of them as elements of a Clifford algebra.  ++ I Dr. Olaf Rogalsky Institut f. Theo. Physik I I I Tel.: 09131 8528440 Univ. ErlangenNuernberg I I Fax.: 09131 8528444 Staudtstrasse 7 B3 I I rogalsky theorie1.physik.unierlangen.de D91058 Erlangen I ++
Mar 10 2003
First of all, a little rant. When thinking about complex numbers, please don't confuse them with vectors. You can't multply vectors*, but you CAN multiply complex numbers. As a physisist I am permanently using complex numbers. There is nothing complex or imaginary about them. They are just numbers, but numbers where you don't need to care when taking roots.Did someone confuse vectors with complex numbers? I didn't notice... In another response, I think we were just talking about the similarities.Here is what I would like to see: 1) I don't see much use for a purely imaginary type, drop it! 2) I don't see much use for integer complex types, don't include it! 3) Properties: z := re + im*I, and x a real number z.abs() sqrt(re*re+im*im) z.abs2() re*re+im*im z.arg() atan2(re, im) z.phase() z/z.abs() z.re() re z.im() im*I z.rim() im z.conj() reim*I z.I() z*I = im + re*I I don't care about the given names, as long as they are short :). 4) Functions on complex: Basic builtin: +, , *, /, sqr := z*z, inv := 1/z, scalar(z1, z2) := z1.conj()*z2 Library: exp, cos, sin, tan, cosh, sinh, tanh ln, acos, asin, atan, acosh, asinh, atanh, pow(z1, z2), log(z1, z2), sqrt 5) Constructors: z = creal(re, im); z = creal.polar(modulus, argument); The distinction between properties and functions is somewhat arbitrary. In my eyes, a property shall return some known information about the variable, but what is known depends on the implementation of that variable (e.g., wether the compiler stores complex numbers in cartesian or polar format). One can argue with good reasons to move some of the above properties to the functions section. I have no objections against doing so.Well, that sums up the needs quite nicely :). Nice to have an expert give an opinion. Thanks. Later, John PS Apologies to Olaf. I sent email direct to him by mistake  hit the wrong button, darn:P
Mar 10 2003
John Reimer wrote:Did someone confuse vectors with complex numbers? I didn't notice... In another response, I think we were just talking about the similarities.Well, aehem, ..., I sometimes have the feeling that Sean Palmer only thinks of them as a clever way to make 2D vector manipulations. Nothing personal though, Sean. I just don't agree, that complex numbers should only be included into the core language iff vectors are included as well. One reason, that many "numeric" people stuck with Fortran instead of C was the lack of complex numbers in C. (The other reason of course is the HUGE amount of quality numeric libraries for Fortran). Olaf  ++ I Dr. Olaf Rogalsky Institut f. Theo. Physik I I I Tel.: 09131 8528440 Univ. ErlangenNuernberg I I Fax.: 09131 8528444 Staudtstrasse 7 B3 I I rogalsky theorie1.physik.unierlangen.de D91058 Erlangen I ++
Mar 10 2003
"Olaf Rogalsky" <olaf.rogalsky theorie1.physik.unierlangen.de> wrote in message news:3E6CD6EC.B3845F79 theorie1.physik.unierlangen.de...John Reimer wrote:Oh yes, now I see. True, true. I was so caught up in arguing my points in previous posts that I didn't really think of how the vector topics were being introduced. The distinction is significant in this regard. That is an interesting note about Fortran and very true. Complex math has been around in the computer field for quite awhile and has many uses, so it's inclusion as a D type seems to be the first logical addition. Quaternions and 3D vectors are much more specialized in there application in comparison, are they not? So I can see why they are not being so quickly adopted as a intrinsic type here. But with the huge explosion in computer graphics technology and development, I can see why people are looking to see their (vectors) use as more of a staple in computer languages. Maybe someday someone will decide that that vectors are now deemed worthy of inclusion, just as there was a point in the past where complex numbers proved critical for inclusion in some languages. I don't know if we've reached that point yet, though, with D. I really see no problem with keeping complex in and vectors out. That does not compromise consistancy, since as you say complex numbers are just numbers with a few interesting properties. They fit the spot quite well. Later, JohnDid someone confuse vectors with complex numbers? I didn't notice... In another response, I think we were just talking about the similarities.Well, aehem, ..., I sometimes have the feeling that Sean Palmer only thinks of them as a clever way to make 2D vector manipulations. Nothing personal though, Sean. I just don't agree, that complex numbers should only be included into the core language iff vectors are included as well. One reason, that many "numeric" people stuck with Fortran instead of C was the lack of complex numbers in C. (The other reason of course is the HUGE amount of quality numeric libraries for Fortran).
Mar 10 2003