MathGroup Archive 2005

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: TableForm and MatrixForm

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg53684] Re: TableForm and MatrixForm
  • From: Bill Rowe <readnewsciv at>
  • Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 03:52:34 -0500 (EST)
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at

On 1/21/05 at 12:31 PM, drbob at (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

>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}}];

>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

  • Prev by Date: Re: TableForm and MatrixForm
  • Next by Date: Superellisoid
  • Previous by thread: Re: TableForm and MatrixForm
  • Next by thread: Memory usage