> Yes. The square root of a perfect square always gives > a "non compex number". 1.234 is a "non compex number" > because 1.234 is simply an integer, 1234 / 100. pi / > 2*pi is a "non compex number" = 1 / 2. pi * pi is a > complex number, yet it is a perfect square. It is > only a perfect square if one divides the result by > pi, giving an integer. Note: since pi is undefined > (can not be evaluated since its value goes > indefinatly and can only be known if one lives > forever), then an "integer representation is used, a > symbol, pi (like an apple is an integer > reprepresentation of an infintly complex object of > cells))
I can't help but wonder if you aren't doing this intentionally!
First, its "complex" not "compex". 1.234 IS a "non-complex" number but NOT because it "is simply an integer". 1.234= 1234/1000 is a RATIONAL NUMBER, not an integer. pi*pi is NOT a complex number, it is a real number, just like pi is (the square of any non-complex number is non-complex).
pi is certainly NOT "undefined". It has several equivalent definitions. One is that pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. Another is that pi is the period of the periodic function sin(x). It is true that pi cannot be written, in our decimal numeration system, in a finite number of digits but that has nothing to do with it being "defined". And, finally, I cannot see what you mean by the use of the Greek letter pi, or any other symbol, to represent an irrational number being an "integer representation".
I would like to believe this is just because English is not your native language but your grammer seems excellent.