From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,8c8550b9f2cf7d40 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-05 09:39:59 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!newsfeed.r-kom.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!213.200.246.247!not-for-mail From: Vinzent Hoefler Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is ther any sense in *= and matrices? Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 18:38:37 +0200 Organization: JeLlyFish software Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.200.246.247 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1054831198 11867436 213.200.246.247 (16 [175126]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:38696 Date: 2003-06-05T18:38:37+02:00 List-Id: Preben Randhol wrote: >Vinzent Hoefler wrote: >> Preben Randhol wrote: >>=20 >>>Vinzent Hoefler wrote: >>>> Of course it is. But because you have to write the Multiply function >>>> yourself anyway and such can take care of that issue, I don't see = why >>>> this should be a problem.=20 >>> >>>Because it doesn't make sense mathematically. >>=20 >> Dividing by zero doesn't make sense either. So IMO that's what the >> Constraint_Error is for. > >The Contraint_Error here is for that *=3D would return a C (m x n) which >differes from the A (n x n). Ok, understood. Depends on how you look at it: Let's take an extreme example and suppose I have an integer type defined only for range 0 .. 1. So writing a +=3D would only make sense for the "special" case that at least one of the operands is zero, not for the general case, because then the result doesn't fit into the original operand. But I wouldn't say, writing such a function wouldn't make sense at all... ;) In the matrix case it's just that you can't write a *=3D that works for the more general case. Simple as that. I really wouldn't see a problem with that. >So *=3D is only usefule (/=3D too) in special >cases such as square matrix. Yes. >Therefore you must make a function Prod >(A,B) at any rate and the *=3D will be of no use as Prod (A,B) is >general. No, maybe you want to multiply square matrices only? ;) Vinzent. --=20 Parents strongly cautioned -- this posting is intended for mature audiences over 18. It may contain some material that many parents would not find suitable for children and may include intense violence, sexual situations, coarse language and suggestive dialogue.