Re: Alternative to defining 'operator' function?
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg47591] Re: Alternative to defining 'operator' function?
- From: Bill Rowe <readnewsciv at earthlink.net>
- Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 05:22:13 -0400 (EDT)
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
On 4/15/04 at 3:39 AM, H.L.Owen at dl.ac.uk (Owen, HL (Hywel)) 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.
>The method I've been using is to define an 'operator' function,
>e.g.
>DotOperator[M_] := Dot[M, #] &
>Is there a simpler way than this that doesn't involve defining
>functions like DotOperator?
I would consider the following simpler
(#.v)&/@{R1,R2,R3, ...}
But since the only real difference is I didn't explicitly define a function like DotOperator, I don't know this meets your criteria above.
--
To reply via email subtract one hundred and four