[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Alternative to defining 'operator' function?
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg47551] Re: Alternative to defining 'operator' function?
*From*: Paul Abbott <paul at physics.uwa.edu.au>
*Date*: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 05:02:17 -0400 (EDT)
*Organization*: The University of Western Australia
*References*: <c5leel$bit$1@smc.vnet.net>
*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
In article <c5leel$bit$1 at smc.vnet.net>,
"Owen, HL (Hywel)" <H.L.Owen at dl.ac.uk> wrote:
> I often have programming problem where I'd like to calculate a set of dot
> products, e.g. applying a list of square matrices {R1,R2,R3...} to a vector
> v to obtain:
>
> {R1.v,R2.R1.v,R3.R2.R1.v,...}
>
> or other functions like that.
Distribute works here:
Distribute[{Subscript[R,1], Subscript[R,2], Subscript[R,3]} . v, List]
> The method I've been using is to define an 'operator' function, e.g.
>
> DotOperator[M_] := Dot[M, #] &
>
> Then we have:
>
> In: DotOperator[R][v]
> Out: R.v
>
> as wanted, so that we can define a ComposeList as
>
> In: Rest[ComposeList[DotOperator[#] & /@ {R1, R2, R3}, v]]
> Out: {R1.v, R2.R1.v, R3.R2.R1.v}
>
> to obtain the result we want.
>
> Is there a simpler way than this that doesn't involve defining functions
> like DotOperator?
Here is one way. Define the action of Rn on v:
Subscript[R, n_][v_] := Subscript[R, n] . v
then use ComposeList:
Rest[ComposeList[Subscript[R,1], Subscript[R,2], Subscript[R,3]}, v]]
Cheers,
Paul
--
Paul Abbott Phone: +61 8 9380 2734
School of Physics, M013 Fax: +61 8 9380 1014
The University of Western Australia (CRICOS Provider No 00126G)
35 Stirling Highway
Crawley WA 6009 mailto:paul at physics.uwa.edu.au
AUSTRALIA http://physics.uwa.edu.au/~paul
Prev by Date:
**Re: DirectMath experience**
Next by Date:
**Re: Question: ABS and \[Prime]**
Previous by thread:
**Alternative to defining 'operator' function?**
Next by thread:
**Re: Alternative to defining 'operator' function?**
| |