I think echelonize is a bit misleading, because it's not really doing Gaussian elimination. Besides, I think it would have to be rref to be consistent with matrices (it's reduced row echelon form, not simply row echelon form):
sage: matrix([0,3,4]).echelon_form() [0 3 4] sage: matrix([0,3,4]).rref() [ 0 1 4/3] Even if "normal form" is used in some specific contexts, I don't think many people would associate it with that function, and it might create confusion with normalize(). How about a vote? 1. reduce() (kind of ambiguous and might be mistaken for the Python function reduce) 2. echelonize() (probably echelon_form() is more appropriate, since it's not mutating the vector) 3. rref() 4. normal_form() 5. monicize() 6. divide_by_leading() I vote (6). On Friday, 30 November 2012 14:15:34 UTC-8, kannappan sampath wrote: > > Here's a "natural" place where I can see this is helpful: > > To carry out, Gauss-Jordan like row reductions, where you'd like the first > non-zero entry in a row (the so-called pivot) to be 1, I think this is very > helpful. > > So, I'd be **for** keeping this, perhaps in a different name, that would > reflect this. Like `reduce(v)` or perhaps, `echelonize(v)` for instance. > > Regards, > ~KnS > > > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 3:06 AM, Eviatar <eviat...@gmail.com > <javascript:>>wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I was planning to work on the patch for this; however, is "normal form" >> known terminology for dividing a vector by the leading entry? A Google >> search returns no such use. Wouldn't it be better for it to be named >> something like divided_by_leading, to remove ambiguity and potential >> confusion? >> >> On Wednesday, 19 September 2012 11:55:24 UTC-7, Chris wrote: >>> >>> It was pointed out to me that vector normalization in Sage is not doing >>> what most people would think it should do. Rather than divide by the norm >>> of the vector, right now the implementation is to divide the vector by the >>> first non-zero part. This was pointed out to me by someone who teaches >>> undergrads and found it frustrating that Sage was not doing the standard >>> normalization. I think it needs to be changed. >>> >>> Anyways, I have opened a trac ticket, take a look: >>> >>> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_**trac/ticket/13393<http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/13393>. >>> >>> >>> >>> It was suggested that this come to a vote. I vote that it be changed. >>> Opinions anyone? >>> >>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "sage-devel" group. >> To post to this group, send email to sage-...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en. >> >> >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en.
