On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 15:16, Stéfan van der Walt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/6/25 Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> In [1]: from numpy import *
>>
>> In [3]: 1j == (0+1j)
>> Out[3]: True
>>
>> In [4]: 0*inf
>> Out[4]: nan
>
> Fair enough.
>
> How about
>
> z = np.complex(0, np.inf)
> z**2
2008/6/25 Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In [1]: from numpy import *
>
> In [3]: 1j == (0+1j)
> Out[3]: True
>
> In [4]: 0*inf
> Out[4]: nan
Fair enough.
How about
z = np.complex(0, np.inf)
z**2 == (nannanj)
Shouldn't that be -inf?
Regards
Stéfan
___
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 6:42 AM, Stéfan van der Walt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Why can't a person construct a complex number with an infinite complex
> part and a zero real part?
>
> 1 + 1j*np.inf == (nan + infj) # because np.inf * 1j == (nan + infj)
>
> There is a workaround:
>
> z
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 07:42, Stéfan van der Walt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Why can't a person construct a complex number with an infinite complex
> part and a zero real part?
>
> 1 + 1j*np.inf == (nan + infj) # because np.inf * 1j == (nan + infj)
In [1]: from numpy import *
In [3
Hi all,
Why can't a person construct a complex number with an infinite complex
part and a zero real part?
1 + 1j*np.inf == (nan + infj) # because np.inf * 1j == (nan + infj)
There is a workaround:
z = np.array([0], dtype=complex)
z.imag = np.inf
but that's not very pleasant.
Is this a bug, or
