Re: [math] Add methods opposite() and inverse() to o.a.c.m.FieldElement
+1 to add both of these, though I would suggest one of the following pairs of names: 0) negate, invert 1) opposite, reciprocal 2) additiveInverse, multiplicativeInverse Probably 2) is clearest, but a bit long. I am fine with any of them. Phil Hi, I've created MATH-686 which relates to this proposal. However looking at what's already implemented in the CM library, I found that the best (unsatisfactory) option would be negate()/reciprocal() -- see the ticket. Native english speakers will probably not like that! Are we really that unhappy with this? Sébastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Add methods opposite() and inverse() to o.a.c.m.FieldElement
On Oct 7, 2011, at 6:07 AM, Sébastien Brisard sebastien.bris...@m4x.org wrote: +1 to add both of these, though I would suggest one of the following pairs of names: 0) negate, invert 1) opposite, reciprocal 2) additiveInverse, multiplicativeInverse Probably 2) is clearest, but a bit long. I am fine with any of them. Phil Hi, I've created MATH-686 which relates to this proposal. However looking at what's already implemented in the CM library, I found that the best (unsatisfactory) option would be negate()/reciprocal() -- see the ticket. Native english speakers will probably not like that! Are we really that unhappy with this? Not worth a long argument, but the reciprocal of a fraction is not exactly the same concept as multiplicative inverse in a field. I would be happier about living with that inconsistency than adding another noun/verb inconsistency in the same class. Phil Sébastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Add methods opposite() and inverse() to o.a.c.m.FieldElement
Not worth a long argument, but the reciprocal of a fraction is not exactly the same concept as multiplicative inverse in a field. I would be happier about living with that inconsistency than adding another noun/verb inconsistency in the same class. Phil Just for my own interest: if I understand correctly, reciprocal is specific to fractions? Is that correct. I'm not sure I understood your last point. Do you suggest we keep what's already there: negate()/reciprocal()? Thanks for these clarifications, Sébastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Add methods opposite() and inverse() to o.a.c.m.FieldElement
On Oct 7, 2011, at 7:43 AM, Sébastien Brisard sebastien.bris...@m4x.org wrote: Not worth a long argument, but the reciprocal of a fraction is not exactly the same concept as multiplicative inverse in a field. I would be happier about living with that inconsistency than adding another noun/verb inconsistency in the same class. Phil Just for my own interest: if I understand correctly, reciprocal is specific to fractions? Is that correct. Yes. I'm not sure I understood your last point. Do you suggest we keep what's already there: negate()/reciprocal()? Yes, because reciprocate (the natural verb) makes no sense and reciprocal is a standard term for the result. Thanks for these clarifications, Sébastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Add methods opposite() and inverse() to o.a.c.m.FieldElement
Le 04/10/2011 05:22, Sébastien Brisard a écrit : Good morning everyone, I would like to add the above mentioned methods to FieldElement. This would avoid awkward commands such as x.getField().getZero().substract(x) (for x.opposite()) and x.getField().getOne().divide(x) (for x.invert()). It's not essential, but I think it would be useful. Besides, I don't think it would bloat the interface, since opposite and inverse are mathematical notions which are intrinsic to fields. What do you think? +0 from me. Luc Best regards, Sébastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Add methods opposite() and inverse() to o.a.c.m.FieldElement
2011/10/4 Luc Maisonobe luc.maison...@free.fr: Le 04/10/2011 05:22, Sébastien Brisard a écrit : Good morning everyone, I would like to add the above mentioned methods to FieldElement. This would avoid awkward commands such as x.getField().getZero().substract(x) (for x.opposite()) and x.getField().getOne().divide(x) (for x.invert()). It's not essential, but I think it would be useful. Besides, I don't think it would bloat the interface, since opposite and inverse are mathematical notions which are intrinsic to fields. What do you think? +0 from me. Luc Best regards, Sébastien +0, too. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Add methods opposite() and inverse() to o.a.c.m.FieldElement
On 10/3/11 8:22 PM, Sébastien Brisard wrote: Good morning everyone, I would like to add the above mentioned methods to FieldElement. This would avoid awkward commands such as x.getField().getZero().substract(x) (for x.opposite()) and x.getField().getOne().divide(x) (for x.invert()). It's not essential, but I think it would be useful. Besides, I don't think it would bloat the interface, since opposite and inverse are mathematical notions which are intrinsic to fields. What do you think? +1 to add both of these, though I would suggest one of the following pairs of names: 0) negate, invert 1) opposite, reciprocal 2) additiveInverse, multiplicativeInverse Probably 2) is clearest, but a bit long. I am fine with any of them. Phil Best regards, Sébastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Add methods opposite() and inverse() to o.a.c.m.FieldElement
+1 to add both of these, though I would suggest one of the following pairs of names: 0) negate, invert 1) opposite, reciprocal 2) additiveInverse, multiplicativeInverse Probably 2) is clearest, but a bit long. I am fine with any of them. Phil I do think these two features might prove useful. There are workarounds, but they tend to verbose code. As for the options you suggest, Phil, I agree my proposition was probably not the best. We must be careful with consistency, because some classes already implement those methods (Complex has a method negate()). I will look into it, and open a JIRA ticket. Sébastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
[math] Add methods opposite() and inverse() to o.a.c.m.FieldElement
Good morning everyone, I would like to add the above mentioned methods to FieldElement. This would avoid awkward commands such as x.getField().getZero().substract(x) (for x.opposite()) and x.getField().getOne().divide(x) (for x.invert()). It's not essential, but I think it would be useful. Besides, I don't think it would bloat the interface, since opposite and inverse are mathematical notions which are intrinsic to fields. What do you think? Best regards, Sébastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
