On 12/29/10 11:09 PM, Rob Beezer wrote:
Whatever we use here for matrices, I'd like to do the same thing for
vectors over CDF (see related post from a few minutes ago).
"conjugate_transpose" is a bit odd for vectors, since Sage carries no
notion of vectors being rows or columns. And it wouldn't make sense
to me to use .adjoint() on a vector if we didn't use it on matrices.
Notice that there is an underlying ideology that vectors are rows:
sage: u=vector([1,2,3])
sage: matrix(u)
[1 2 3]
sage: u.transpose()
[1]
[2]
[3]
So if a vector had a conjugate method, the conjugate transpose would
make sense and would be a matrix.
Proposal: How do folks feel about using .star() for matrices and
vectors as a shorthand/alias for .conjugate_transpose()
and .conjugate() (respectively)?
Pros:
1) A star is a very common notation for this. It is not universal,
but I think the variants (H, a dagger) are more common in other fields
(like physics).
2) Short.
3) No ambiguity about its past.
4) It does not appear to be used elsewhere as a method or function
name (and only a few places as a keyword).
Cons:
1) Highly non-obvious.
2) Others?
I'm not sure how I feel about .star() yet. I do think the .H property
should be implemented, which would be consistent with numpy.
Jason
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
