Talk:Real and imaginary parts

Reverted edit
Dvdm: You didn't need to revert the entire edit I did - the errors were pretty small and unintensional. That contradiction wasn't exactly that much of a problem.

You have a fair point on resources though - one only is indeed unacceptable so more of these are needed.

I'm going to revert the edit back to my re-write, and re-write the definitions and some other parts to applications (the current form of AC application is very wordy). Sources and referances included this time. --F&#61;q(E+v^B) (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Its done. All forgotten and now settled.--F&#61;q(E+v^B) (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Application clean up
Right now I don't have time to cleanup the appications - they need it, but i'll come back to it late (unless someone else does in the time elapsed)r.--F&#61;q(E+v^B) (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Shoudn't this article be simply merged into Complex number? Not much new here, and i.m.o. no reason to have this article in the first place. - DVdm (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It probably should, but now others have added slight generalizations to hypercomplex numbers. You're absolutley right why is this article here anyway?... There's not exactly much to them - they are what they are... I would simply merge articles.--F&#61;q(E+v^B) (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's here for some (perhaps obscure) historic reason. We have tons of little articles suffering from this inconvenience. I would definitely support a merge, so afaic, go right ahead, as I am not a Wikimerging type, so to speak. - DVdm (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I would also support a merge (obviously dropping the bits about other hypercomplex numbers), since this is largely an example of "wikibloat". I think that the only worthwhile point in the article is that what is meant by the imaginary part of a complex number z = x + iy is by convention the real coefficient y and not the whole term iy (unfortunate as this is for consistency in the context of the generalization to hypercomplex numbers, but this point need not be made). It is already effectively there under Definition, but it could perhaps be emphasized that this is merely a convention. Quondum talkcontr 19:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way - I am not totally confident about merging. It looks quite complex, and risky if it goes wrong. If no-one else does - i'll try soon, though its probably better if someone who understands all about re-directs, double re-directs etc. and how to fix them, does the merge instead. Here is the info page on merging for completeness. --F&#61;q(E+v^B) (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Merger complete
I read up how to do it inside out, its now done.-- F = q(E + v × B) 10:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)