Wow, that question got people interested! Checking a few books myself I was struck by how many advanced texts avoid using the term at all (for the adjugate or classical adjoint).
P M Cohn's Algebra 1 defines adjugate (p.196). Maclana and Birkhoff (p.194) call it the "classical adjoint". Aposotol's Calculus (which is very good on linear algebra!) has a footnote "In much of the matrix literature the transpose of the cofactor matrix is called the adjugate of A. Some of the older literature calls it the adjoint of A. However, current nomenclature reserves the name adjoint for an entirely different object..." John On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Rob Beezer <goo...@beezer.cotse.net> wrote: > On Dec 2, 10:55 pm, Dima Pasechnik <dimp...@gmail.com> wrote: >> But for "conjugate transpose" one can just introduce operator ^*, as >> usually >> the conjugate transpose of $A$ is denoted by $A^*$. > > Accepted notation is another can of worms. Conjugate-transpose can be > an exponent that is a star, dagger or the letter H. And sometimes a * > just means complex conjugation. > > Lets not go there. ;-) > > Rob > > -- > 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 > -- 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
