#10501: Deprecate adjoint in favor of adjugate
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Reporter: rbeezer | Owner: jason, was
Type: task | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.6.2
Component: linear algebra | Keywords:
Author: | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: | Merged:
Work_issues: |
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Comment(by rbeezer):
Replying to [comment:2 tornaria]:
Hi Gonzalo,
I certainly read your postings to the mailing list carefully and
appreciated the points you raised. However, I had not realized you were
so opposed to the change.
After some discussion, I asked 'Is there any objection to deprecating the
current .adjoint() function (which returns a matrix of cofactors) and
renaming it as the "adjugate"?'
It was not meant to be an official vote, but I got +1 replies from Grout,
Cremona, Loeffler and Stein. Dima P and Karl Crisman had earlier voiced
support. There were no objections stated once I asked the question
carefully. So I have been proceeding on the assumption that there was
strong support.
I do not believe I changed any of the names of the commands for quadratic
forms, though I can see that causing confusion if the adjoint of a matrix
becomes the conjugate transpose.
I have written a patch (#10471) with the `conjugate_transpose()`, which I
find a really clumsy command, but workable in the interim. William has
suggested a more general `adjoint` function, which I would need to think
about some more, but maybe that does not help with any of your objections
(sounds like maybe that is worse in your view).
I have twice now taught a "matrix analysis" course and it seems to me that
adjoint gets used regularly (but maybe not consistently) for the conjugate
transpose. I am in the middle of making a major push to add significant
amount of Sage code to my introductory linear algebra text, which is going
very nicely. But I need to also fix my "complex inner product" since I
defined it with the conjugation on the "wrong" half. So I would really
like to keep Sage, my text, and the word "adjoint" all consistent with
each other when I get to that point in a few weeks.
Do you have some suggestions for a way forward?
Thanks,
Rob
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10501#comment:3>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.
