On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:33:41 -0500, "Tim Williams"
wrote:

"The Phantom" wrote in message
.. .
What's wrong with j's on all levels?

I was told to "simplify" expressions so that no radicals, imaginary factors,
fractions, etc. are on the bottom.

If you go back and look at the thread from Nov 2005, you will see that at
one point you said:

"Ah, well then. Imaginary numbers are fine for imagining things, but I
need real numbers, that exist in the real world."

Apparently the plotting routine you were using at that time couldn't deal
with the complex constant j. But now you are able to deal with it in the
numerator. Whatever you're doing with j in the numerator, you can do the
same with j in the denominator.

When it comes to plotting functions, there's no need to '"simplify"
expressions so that no radicals, imaginary factors, fractions, etc. are on
the bottom.'

In fact, doing all the algebra to "simplify" increases the possibility of
making a mistake. If you just plot the simplest expression, such as the
first one in my attachment, the one with "j's on all levels", the plot
should be the same, and with no extra algebraic simplification necessary.


Too bad this leads to less than simple expressions, like for such purposes
as this!

Tim