On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 7:28 PM Stephen J. Turnbull
<turnbull.stephen...@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:
>
> Cody Piersall writes:
>
> > would be the in-place matmul operator (@=) but there are use cases
> > where matrix-multiplication of signals would actually be useful
> > too.
>
> If I recall correctly, the problem that the numeric community faced
> was that there are multiple "multiplication" operations that matrices
> "want to" support with operator notation because they're all
> frequently used in more or less complex expressions, not that matrix
> algebra needs to spell its multiplication operator differently from
> "*".
>
> According to the OP, signals are "just integers". Integers do not
> need to support matrix multiplication because they *can't*. There may
> be matrices of signals that do want to support multiplication, but
> that will be a different type, and presumably multiplication of signal
> matrices will be supported by "*". Can you say that signal matrices
> will have more than one frequently needed "multiplication" operation?
Your statement about the history is absolutely correct, but please
notice two matrix dot-multiplication 1xN @ Nx1 ==> a single value, so
something like below holds:
signal_result <== [sig sig sig ...] @ [sig, sig, sig, ...] (',' used
to make the second a Nx1 for example). And now imagine you want to mix
up @= with @, in one place @= means signal assignment, in another it
means matrix. What's more, when start to use matrix to drive signal
matrix, I assume a lot of matrix ops including the @= is definitely
going to be very often used to produce the stimuli (e.g. using normal
number matrix ops to generate the desired result matrix to drive on
signal matrix), that's why I am refrained from using @= entirely.
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
