After the first dozen responses, I’m currently thinking of writing something along the lines: “While the unusual math of noncommutative probabilities allows for complex probabilities, which have applications in quantum superpositions and eigenstates, there is little likelihood of any practical application involving (the protocol). A (protocol) statement may be written with a complex number for its confidence, but a (protocol) reader or interpreter need only concern itself with the real portion of that number.”
Either that, or just stating ‘real numbers only’.
(PS: I’ve never written anything which has even a chance at being an Internet Draft, let alone an RFC; but if the tag: URI made it in, nym: just might pass muster, too—and I would welcome any and all advice.)
After the first dozen responses, I’m currently thinking of writing something along the lines: “While the unusual math of noncommutative probabilities allows for complex probabilities, which have applications in quantum superpositions and eigenstates, there is little likelihood of any practical application involving (the protocol). A (protocol) statement may be written with a complex number for its confidence, but a (protocol) reader or interpreter need only concern itself with the real portion of that number.”
Either that, or just stating ‘real numbers only’.
(PS: I’ve never written anything which has even a chance at being an Internet Draft, let alone an RFC; but if the tag: URI made it in, nym: just might pass muster, too—and I would welcome any and all advice.)