[Numpy-discussion] matrix default to column vector?
Sun Jun 7 02:43:33 CDT 2009
There would be a much simpler solution than allowing a new operator. Just
allow the numpy function dot to take more than two arguments. Then A*B*C in
matrix notation would simply be:
with arrays. Wouldn't that make everybody happy? Plus it does not break
backward compatibility. Am I missing something?
2009/6/7 Tom K. <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Fernando Perez wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Charles R
> > Harris<email@example.com> wrote:
> >> I don't think we can change the current matrix class, to do so would
> >> break
> >> too much code. It would be nice to extend it with an explicit inner
> >> product,
> >> but I can't think of any simple notation for it that python would parse.
> > Maybe it's time to make another push on python-dev for the pep-225
> > stuff for other operators?
> > https://cirl.berkeley.edu/fperez/static/numpy-pep225/
> > Last year I got pretty much zero interest from python-dev on this, but
> > they were very very busy with 3.0 on the horizon. Perhaps once they
> > put 3.1 out would be a good time to champion this again.
> > It's slightly independent of the matrix class debate, but perhaps
> > having special operators for real matrix multiplication could ease
> > some of the bottlenecks of this discussion.
> > It would be great if someone could champion that discussion on
> > python-dev though, I don't see myself finding the time for it another
> > time around...
> How about pep 211?
> PEP 211 proposes a single new operator (@) that could be used for matrix
> MATLAB has elementwise versions of multiply, exponentiation, and left and
> right division using a preceding "." for the usual matrix versions (* ^ \
> PEP 225 proposes "tilde" versions of + - * / % **.
> While PEP 225 would allow a matrix exponentiation and right divide, I think
> these things are much less common than matrix multiply. Plus, I think
> following through with the PEP 225 implementation would create a
> frankenstein of a language that would be hard to read.
> So, I would argue for pushing for a single new operator that can then be
> used to implement "dot" with a binary infix operator. We can resurrect PEP
> 211 or start a new PEP or whatever, the main thing is to have a proposal
> that makes sense. Actually, what do you all think of this:
> @ --> matrix multiply
> @@ --> matrix exponentiation
> and we leave it at that - let's not get too greedy and try for matrix
> inverse via @/ or something.
> For the nd array operator, I would propose taking the last dimension of the
> left array and "collapsing" it with the first dimension of the right array,
> shape (a0, ..., aL-1,k) @ (k, b0, ..., bM-1) --> (a0, ..., aL-1, b0, ...,
> Does that make sense?
> With this proposal, matrices go away and all our lives are sane again. :-)
> Long live the numpy ndarray! Thanks to the creators for all your hard work
> BTW - I love this stuff!
> - Tom K.
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the Numpy-discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> Numpy-discussion mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Numpy-discussion