On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 8:44 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, wrote:
>> On Sunday, March 9, 2014 7:20:50 PM UTC, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the following piece should be made more clear, I don't
>>> understand what you're trying to say here:
>>>
>>> The probl
On 2014-03-09 20:40, n...@vorpus.org wrote:
Indeed, it's clear from everyone's responses here that I at least need
to add a new section talking about these things explicitly, and also
about why elementwise-* is actually used so often in practice in numeric
computation (as opposed dto symbolic com
On 2014-03-09 20:40, n...@vorpus.org wrote:
In brief, the issue is that elementwise-* is a fine convention and you
can use it to write useful code, and matrix-multiply-* is a fine
convention and you can use it to write useful code, but if you then try
to glue those two pieces of code together int
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, wrote:
> On Sunday, March 9, 2014 7:20:50 PM UTC, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>>
>> I think the following piece should be made more clear, I don't
>> understand what you're trying to say here:
>>
>> The problem is that the presence of two different duck-types for numeri
On Sunday, March 9, 2014 7:20:50 PM UTC, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> I think the following piece should be made more clear, I don't
> understand what you're trying to say here:
>
> The problem is that the presence of two different duck-types for numeric
> data -- one where * means matrix multiply,
I think the following piece should be made more clear, I don't
understand what you're trying to say here:
The problem is that the presence of two different duck-types for numeric
data -- one where * means matrix multiply, and one where * means
elementwise multiplication -- make it impossible t
On 2014-03-09 18:19, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
In your PEP, you say that using * for matrix multiplication is a bad
idea, but without any justification (the only justification is
variations on "it's a bad idea" without reasons).
From reading your PEP, it's clear that you don't like numpy.matrix but
On 2014-03-09 16:09, n...@vorpus.org wrote:
I definitely want to hear your feedback.
I completely agree with John Cremona: please keep * for matrix
multiplication. Why not add a new dedicated operator for elementwise
multiplication and use * for matrix multiplication?
In your PEP, you say tha
I find it very hard to imagine Sage using anything other than * (as in
A*B) for normal matrix multiplication, as anything else would alienate
all of its mathematical users. I would have no reason at all ever to
have an element-wise matrix product!
John Cremona
On 9 March 2014 15:09, wrote:
> G
Greetings, Sage Ones,
Some of you may have already seen this, but I've started working on a draft
PEP for adding a dedicated operator for matrix multiplication to Python:
https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/4351
https://github.com/njsmith/numpy/blob/matmul-pep/doc/neps/return-of-revenge-of-m
10 matches
Mail list logo
