Hi all, On 7/7/06, Travis Oliphant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I didn't compile the results, but the discussion on the idea of adding > new attributes to the array object led to the following result. > > Added: .T attribute to mean self.transpose()
[...] > .H > > A few were in favor, but this can now be written .T.conj() which is not > bad so does not get a new attribute. I didn't have strong feelings one way or another on this, so I didn't vote, but at this point I'd like to make a comment before the freeze. Given that .T went in, I'd argue that .H should be in as well. Basically, I now think these two should have been considered as a bundle and not as separate options. The reason isn't (just) my OCD surfacing again, but the fact that the hermitian conjugate plays /exactly/ the role that transposition plays, in regards to defining norms and (positive definite) inner products, when complex arrays are in play. The fact that numpy has excellent complex support is a major source of joy for many. I think that having .T but not .H would be a big wart in this regard. If you are trying to write code for inner products with complex arrays, the natural language change from real ones is: dot(A.T,B) -> dot(A.H,B) For people who play with quantum mechanics this is an everyday need (self-adjoint operators require expressions like this all the time), but I suspect its use will be common in any field requiring normed spaces with complex arrays. Just my 1e-2j Cheers, f ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/numpy-discussion
