Re: Alternative to defining 'operator' function?

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg47554] Re: Alternative to defining 'operator' function?
• From: bobhanlon at aol.com (Bob Hanlon)
• Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 05:20:19 -0400 (EDT)
• References: <c5leel\$bit\$1@smc.vnet.net>
• Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

```Rest[FoldList[#2.#1&, v, {R1, R2, R3}]]

{R1.v, R2.R1.v, R3.R2.R1.v}

Bob Hanlon

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.

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?

```

• Prev by Date: Re: When Is Precision[ ] \$MachinePrecision, And When Is It Not?
• Next by Date: Re: What does +- mean?
• Previous by thread: Re: Alternative to defining 'operator' function?
• Next by thread: RE: Alternative to defining 'operator' function?