Re: [boost] Re: Boost Mathematicians

From: Jeremy Siek (jsiek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-06 10:37:20

Hi David,

On Jul 6, 2004, at 10:24 AM, David B. Held wrote:
> Actually, taking a look at mathworld.wolfram.com and a few other
> sites, I have reached the tentative conclusion that outer products
> can only be formed over vectors, not matrices.  Matrix multiplication
> is well-defined and unambiguous, whereas vector multiplication
> comes in at least four varieties: dot product, cross product (also
> called the "outer product"), perpendicular dot product, and vector
> direct product.

Thanks for the concise summary!

> Hence, it would make sense that operator*(matrix, matrix) would
> mean "matrix multiplication".

yes.

>   However, operator*(vector, vector) is the problem child.

Yes, there is no obvious "right choice" for vectors. There are basically
two options, both of which are fine by me.

1. Use names such as inner_product (or dot_product), outer_product, etc.
   This approach is "true" to the mathematics and completely unambiguous.

2. Take the Matlab approach (which also appears in many textbooks),
    and treat vectors as degenerate matrices:
    as either row or column vectors. In this case, operator* on
    these vectors just has the usual meaning it does for matrices.
    Depending on whether the vectors are row or column vectors determines
    whether operator* is equivalent to inner or outer product.
    This approach is more concise and fits with existing practice.

Cheers,
Jeremy

_______________________________________________
Jeremy Siek <jsiek_at_[hidden]>
http://www.osl.iu.edu/~jsiek
Ph.D. Student, Indiana University Bloomington
C++ Booster (http://www.boost.org)
_______________________________________________