>>30
I do know what I'm talking about. I make a point of not discussing subjects I'm not familiar with. The standard for expression of complex numbers is a+bi (or, apparently, re^i*theta)). This makes (a+bi)/c technically incorrect, because a/c and b/c are also constants. Convert these rational numbers to decimal form, and you get a new (yet equivalent) a and b for your complex number, which can now be written in a+bi. Of course, (a/c + i*b/c) is also acceptable. This is what I was taught. If (a+bi)/c is now a conventional and valid form of complex numbers, please tell me and link me to a source.
>>32
Fuck you.
(a) I -had- it so tough. Note that I'm no longer in high school.
(b) Catholics do not suck. And what the fuck is "CFQD"?