yeah it looks like everybody's focused on the mechanics of the computation and not appreciating the math i.e. why the two expressions compute to the same value.
We are not in an algebra II class. We are talking about the merits of scheme. You posted a relatively opaque comment and made a relatively unfounded assertion about whether other languages could do it.
It might have been better for you to have been a little more direct-- "I like that exponentiation of complex types just works in Scheme; I don't think that works in other languages!"
I'm not sure why you think scheme is unique in being able to do this-- indeed, it's one of the examples of std::pow on cppreference:
I also hope it wasn't a way to humblebrag that you have a kid in middle school that knows math that lots of other people around here don't (having forgotten it from alg2/precalc or just having trouble reading your comment). Know your audience and prevailing context, and be clear.
It might have been better for you to have been a little more direct-- "I like that exponentiation of complex types just works in Scheme; I don't think that works in other languages!"
I'm not sure why you think scheme is unique in being able to do this-- indeed, it's one of the examples of std::pow on cppreference:
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/numeric/complex/pow
> std::cout << "i^i = " << std::pow(i, i) << '\n';
> i^i = (0.207880,0.000000)
I also hope it wasn't a way to humblebrag that you have a kid in middle school that knows math that lots of other people around here don't (having forgotten it from alg2/precalc or just having trouble reading your comment). Know your audience and prevailing context, and be clear.