In Rainer Kress'es book "linear integral equations" (2nd edition) on page 9 it says
Definition 1.19 Let X be a complex (or real) linear space. Then a function $(\cdot , \cdot): \rightarrow X \times X \rightarrow \mathbb{C}\; (or \mathbb{R})$ with the properties.
(H1) $(\varphi, \varphi) \geq 0 $ (positivity)
[...].
for all $\varphi \in X$ is called a Scalar product.
Now, if the mapping goes from $X\times X$ to $\mathbb{C}$, we might have to compare imaginary numbers with the > relation, which is not possible to my knowledge. Is this a mistake in the book, or did I miss something?
Edit: pardon my formatting, I'm typing this on my phone
Clarification Why do we map $X \times X \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ in the first place if we implicitly assume it is real anyway. I find this confusing.
Result My confusion came from, that I thought of a mapping to be a Scalar product which turned out it was not.
Without context, it is difficult to say if there may have been a mistake. However, if done correctly, one of the other properties of $(\cdot, \cdot)$ will be the fact that $(\phi, \psi) = \overline{(\psi,\phi)}$, where the line denotes complex conjugation. In particular, you have that $(\phi,\phi) = \overline{(\phi,\phi)}$ and thus $(\phi, \phi)$ is always real.
Alternatively, for complex numbers $\alpha$, you could interpret $\alpha \geq 0$ as meaning "$\alpha$ is real, and furthermore $\alpha \geq 0$".