From: Jeremy Graham Siek (jsiek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-05 21:08:49
I agree with you. The use of operator* does not imply commutativity.
On Jul 5, 2004, at 6:04 PM, Paul C. Leopardi wrote:
> Hi all,
> Reply to a sub-issue below.
> Best regards
> On Tuesday 06 July 2004 02:58, Peter Schmitteckert wrote:
> > This imples, that the elements of a matrix need not be commutative,
> > having again consequences for general routines using operator*(),
> > since this oftemn implies the commutativity of elements.
> Can anyone explain to me why operator* implies the commutativity of
> The GluCat library ( http://glucat.sf.net ) uses operator* and its
> do not necessarily commute under multiplication.
> How would you use expression templates to implement a non-commutative
> concept, or more to the point, a ring or an algebra? My first thought
> this was to use operator* as it seems most natural, and in the case of
> Clifford algebras, gives subalgebras isomorphic to the quaternions,
> numbers and real numbers.
> Of course, this discussion comes from a mathematical viewpoint rather
> than a
> computer science viewpoint, but I don't see why these viewpoints need
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Jeremy Siek <jsiek_at_[hidden]>
Ph.D. Candidate, Indiana University Bloomington
C++ Booster (http://www.boost.org)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk