>>48
no, but i've taken classes in abstract algebra, group theory, and two linear algebra courses.
are you suggesting that a real number is not a complex number?
>>46 was insinuating that a ratio of complex to real numbers may not be meaningful as a complex number because the numbers came from different fields. if you're not a retard, you probably already know that the reals are a subset of the complex numbers, so any real number is a complex number. so, while he would have a point if we were talking about whether or not the ratio made sense in the reals; we weren't.