Re: Repeatable compression is possible and easy to do, here's how...

erpy <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Thomas Richter ha scritto:
Thomas Richter schrieb:

And if you think this is a weird agreement, consider the following:

(a,b) & (c,d) := (abd+cbd,bd)


Awh, this should be of course:

(a,b) & (c,d) := (ad+bc,bd)

*darn*.

So long,
Thomas



Aehm...if you two (Phil and you) have done with providing and then
correcting your own examples... :)
... simply put, what's the *numerical value* of "i" ? (...and do not
reply with sqrt(-1) :) )

What's the numerical value of the sum of the squares of the reciprocals
of the imaginary component of the non-trivial roots of the zeta function?

It's real, by definition, but what's its value?

I said that I see the usefulness of complex numbers - and I know they
have many applications.
My point is that the complex field has been invented (read: created)
upon the *assumption* that there exist a solution for sqrt(-1)...while
till complex numbers entered the game it had *no solution* - and still
this solution ("i") does not have a numeric value, i.e. it is a
constant but stays numerically "undefined".
If this reasoning can be applied in an undefined manner, then any
problem that requires an apparently "impossible" solution (sqrt(-1)
*was* equally impossible before complex numbers) can be solved by
assigning solution X to the initial problem...and then construct a
whole theory over that initial assumption.

No the complex numbers can be assumed to exist simply if one assumes
that there's a complete field with characteristic zero.

Once you've assumed that, you can generate from it the reals
as the subfield which is unchanged under conjugation.

Don't believe that integers build rationals build reals build
complex numbers, it can be done in reverse too.

Phil
--
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
-- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration
.