Re: TableForm and MatrixForm

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg53684] Re: TableForm and MatrixForm*From*: Bill Rowe <readnewsciv at earthlink.net>*Date*: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 03:52:34 -0500 (EST)*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

On 1/21/05 at 12:31 PM, drbob at bigfoot.com (DrBob) wrote: >>>This is particularly useful in that I don't have to remember to >>>remove the Head MatrixForm before using the results in subsequent >>>computations. >Yes, this is still important in version 5.1, where TableForm and >MatrixForm STILL do not act like the wrappers (not affecting >computation) that documentation claims they are. I agree the documentation could be made much clearer. >(Execute this, for instance.) >m = TableForm[{{1, 2, 3}, {4, 6, 5}, {9, 8, 7}}]; >Transpose@% >Transpose@m >The first output is properly transposed, but the second is not. Hmm... here "5.1 for Mac OS X (October 25, 2004)", both give identical outputs with neither showing a transposed matrix. >I don't like defaulting to TraditionalForm output, however, since >it's not hard to come across tables that (a) I don't think of as >matrices (even if they're in the right shape), and (b) matrices too >large to fit the screen in TraditionalForm. Obviously, YMMV. But for me your (a) is never a problem mainly becuase about the only use I have for TableForm is in a report for others rather than a working notebook. And as for your (b) I find none of the standard output forms suitable for very large matrices. In this case, I will want to display only a portion of the matrix using Take or Short. All in all, I find TraditionalForm to be best choice most of the time. -- To reply via email subtract one hundred and four