On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 6:30:12 PM UTC-7, jason wrote:
>
> On 9/12/12 7:47 PM, Rob Beezer wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 10:04:54 AM UTC-7, jason wrote:
> >
> > I'm curious: is there a good reason why the product of two complex
> > vectors does not conj
On 9/12/12 7:47 PM, Rob Beezer wrote:
On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 10:04:54 AM UTC-7, jason wrote:
I'm curious: is there a good reason why the product of two complex
vectors does not conjugate the first vector (which would yield the
standard inner product for complex vectors).
On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 10:04:54 AM UTC-7, jason wrote:
>
> I'm curious: is there a good reason why the product of two complex
> vectors does not conjugate the first vector (which would yield the
> standard inner product for complex vectors).
>
>
I think because I lost the argument th
On 9/12/12 5:09 PM, Benjamin Jones wrote:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
Fair enough. That's convincing to me. I wish there was a nice notation in
Sage for v.inner_product(w) that wasn't so cumbersome and wordy, then!
Thanks,
Jason
I have wished for the same thing
On 9/12/12 12:23 PM, William Stein wrote:
There is a completely different method called "inner_product":
sage: v.inner_product(v)
Then maybe this is a bug?
sage: v=vector(CDF,[2+I,5])
sage: v.inner_product(v)
28.0 + 4.0*I
sage: v.column().H*v.column()
[30.0]
Thanks,
Jason
--
You recei
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
>
> Fair enough. That's convincing to me. I wish there was a nice notation in
> Sage for v.inner_product(w) that wasn't so cumbersome and wordy, then!
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
I have wished for the same thing on occasion. One idea would be to
On 9/12/12 12:23 PM, William Stein wrote:
To me (who prob. implemented this) the asterisk in v*v means "dot product".
If you look at the code, you'll see it starts:
if have_same_parent(left, right):
return (left)._dot_product_(right)
There is a completely different method called "inner
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> On 9/12/12 12:11 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, 13 September 2012 01:04:54 UTC+8, jason wrote:
>>
>> I'm curious: is there a good reason why the product of two complex
>> vectors does not conjugate the first vector
On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 1:18:32 PM UTC-4, jason wrote:
>
> On 9/12/12 12:11 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, 13 September 2012 01:04:54 UTC+8, jason wrote:
> >
> > I'm curious: is there a good reason why the product of two complex
> > vectors does not conj
I prefer this:
Hermitian: \bar{v} * w
Bilinear: v * w
over
Hermitian: v * w
Bilinear: ???
though tastes are different ;-)
On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 6:18:32 PM UTC+1, jason wrote:
>
> On 9/12/12 12:11 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, 13 September 2012 01:0
On 9/12/12 12:11 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
On Thursday, 13 September 2012 01:04:54 UTC+8, jason wrote:
I'm curious: is there a good reason why the product of two complex
vectors does not conjugate the first vector (which would yield the
standard inner product for complex vectors).
On Thursday, 13 September 2012 01:04:54 UTC+8, jason wrote:
>
> I'm curious: is there a good reason why the product of two complex
> vectors does not conjugate the first vector (which would yield the
> standard inner product for complex vectors).
>
> Note:
>
> sage: v=vector(CDF,[2+I,5])
> s
On 9/12/12 12:04 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
I'm curious: is there a good reason why the product of two complex
vectors does not conjugate the first vector (which would yield the
standard inner product for complex vectors).
Note:
sage: v=vector(CDF,[2+I,5])
sage: v
(2.0 + 1.0*I, 5.0)
sage: v*v
28.0
That all sounds very sensible to me.
Why don't you make a trac with most of your previous email in it?
I'll be busy with other matters but am happy to have more ideas
bounced off me.
John
On 10/01/2008, David Kohel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dear John (et
> al.),
>
> I think the inner produ
Dear John (et
al.),
I think the inner product should be the same irrespective of the
field.
The inner product as dot product is relevant to the study of
quadratic
forms, conics, and orthogonal groups. For instance finding a
rational
point on the conic x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = 0 over CC is equivalent t
I don't have an answer to Brandon's remark, but John, should this be in
Trac?
On Jan 6, 2008 8:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> I realize this is a bit naive (and not completely related to the OP)
> but as it currently stands the CC used in sage is essentially a
> subfiel
I realize this is a bit naive (and not completely related to the OP)
but as it currently stands the CC used in sage is essentially a
subfield of QQ(i). It may be better to implement RR and CC using
exact precision (though admittedly this will come at a cost in
performance) and allow the real fiel
You are right about the correct inner product definition for complex
vectors. In your first example Sage seems not to be doing any
conjugation.
RR is real numbers (to some precision) while QQ is rational numbers
(which are exact). If you want complex numbers with real and
imaginary parts in QQ
18 matches
Mail list logo
