Talk:Test integerness

Some thoughts

We also have: Determine if a string is numeric
What does integerness mean? would "Have no imaginary part(s) and nothing* after the decimal point" do?

(At least for ints, reals, complex, and Quaternion types; not sure about infinities and whatnot).

*Note, .999... === 1 though.

--Paddy3118 (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the task. --Paddy3118 (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

An integer is an element of Z. Complex numbers, quaternions etc do no qualify as integers even if their real components are integers. There would be some sense in considering them so, but it's not the case mostly for historical reasons I guess.

To make the task clearer, I'll add a link to the Wikipedia article. Hope that helps.--Grondilu (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

REXX considers 1.00 and 1e27 to be integers as long as Numeric Digits is large enough. ok? --Walterpachl (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the problem. 1.00 and 1e27 *are* integers. They may be stored as floating point numbers, but they are integers.--Grondilu (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, the test makes sense with complex numbers. Basically a complex number is an integer if its real part is integer and its imaginary part is nul.--Grondilu (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

(As per above) I'm assuming that 4+0i is an integer, even though the 0i isn't "nul"; the imaginary part is equal to zero, but it's not equal to a "nul" (depending on one's definition of the equality of zero and "nul" in the previous sentence). -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Imaginary numbers are taught as existing on an orthogonal axis to the reals intersecting the reals at 0j. It seems OK to thing of am imaginary number with zero imaginary part and zero after the decimal point as equivalent to an integer for this task. --Paddy3118 (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)