Re: Dot or Inner ... but not quite

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg79648] Re: Dot or Inner ... but not quite
• From: Bill Rowe <readnewsciv at sbcglobal.net>
• Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 04:58:01 -0400 (EDT)

```On 7/31/07 at 6:13 AM, dot at dot.dot (Diamond, Mark) wrote:

>I have two equi-length lists, the first of number, the second of
>(equi-length) lists of numbers , such as

>l1={1,4,3}; l2={{1,7},{1,9},{5,2}};

>I want to produce 1*{1,7}+4*{1,9}+3*{5,2}

>It looks so close to Inner that I thought I could use it in some
>form, but I have ended up using

>(#[[1]]*#[[2]])& /@ Transpose[{l1,l2}]

>Is there a better way using one of the builtin functions with which
>I am unfamiliar?

Certainly, there are other ways. But better is fairly subjective.

Here are two ways to accomplish the same thing

Out[7]= {20,49}

In[8]:= Plus @@ MapThread[Times, {l1, l2}]

Out[8]= {20,49}

Note, both of these output what you said you wanted to produce, i.e.,

In[9]:= 1*{1, 7} + 4*{1, 9} + 3*{5, 2}

Out[9]= {20,49}

Which is not what your code does, i.e.,

In[10]:= (#[[1]]*#[[2]]) & /@ Transpose[{l1, l2}]

Out[10]= {{1, 7}, {4, 36}, {15, 6}}

--
To reply via email subtract one hundred and four

```

• Prev by Date: Re: Dot or Inner ... but not quite
• Next by Date: Re: FindRoot[] with mixed complex and real variables?
• Previous by thread: Re: Dot or Inner ... but not quite
• Next by thread: Re: Dot or Inner ... but not quite