@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ Once the whole cell path is computed, the answer is found by removing duplicate
@subsection{Alternate approach: complex numbers}
@subsection{Alternate approach: complex numbers}
Rather than use Cartesian coordinates, we could rely on Racket's built-in support for complex numbers to trace the path in the complex plane. Complex numbers have a real and an imaginary part— e.g, @racket[3+4i] —and thus, represent points in a plane just as well as Cartesian coordinates. The advantage is that complex numbers are atomic values, not lists. We can add them normally, without resort to @racket[map]. (It's not essential for this problem, but math jocks might remember that complex numbers can be rotated 90 degrees by multiplying by @racket[+i].)
Rather than use Cartesian coordinates, we could rely on Racket's built-in support for complex numbers to trace the path in the complex plane. Complex numbers have a real and an imaginary part— e.g, @racket[3+4i] —and thus, represent points in a plane just as well as Cartesian coordinates. The advantage is that complex numbers are atomic values, not lists. We can add them normally, without resort to @racket[map]. (It's not essential for this problem, but math jocks might remember that complex numbers can be rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise by multiplying by @tt{+i}.)
Again, the problem has nothing to do with complex numbers inherently. Like pairs and lists, they're just another option for encoding dual-valued data.
Again, the problem has nothing to do with complex numbers inherently. Like pairs and lists, they're just another option for encoding dual-valued data.
@ -56,11 +56,11 @@ Again, the problem has nothing to do with complex numbers inherently. Like pairs
