MathGroup Archive 1998

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

Search the Archive

Re: RE: Re: Re: Non-comm

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg13446] Re: [mg13414] RE: [mg13344] Re: [mg13280] Re: Non-comm
  • From: MJE <evans.nospam at>
  • Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 01:45:34 -0400
  • Organization: None
  • References: <>
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at

Hi Ted -

Regarding NonCommutativeMultiply:

This feature doesn't solve any of the problems I mentioned.  As a
trivial example, write 'NonCommutativeMultiply[I,A]' where 'I' is meant
to represent the identity matrix.  You can't tell Mathematica that I
and A are matrices, much less that I is the identity matrix, without
defining the full-blown forms.  Mathematica assumes that I and A
represent complex numbers.  So the matrix expression 'I A' will not
simplify under NonCommutativeMultiply.

Your comment about the Notation package is true in general terms, but
for common things like symbolic matrix math, WRI should write the rule
base, not every user on his own.


Ersek_Ted%PAX1A at wrote:
> Isn't this built-in as a different type of multiplication?
> In[5]:=
> ?NonCommutativeMultiply
> "a ** b ** c is a general associative, but non-commutative, form of \
> multiplication."
> If you like you can use the Notation package to define a convention for
> Input and/or Output that is more readable.
> Ted Ersek

  • Prev by Date: Re: Gaussian Elimination wont work in my example
  • Next by Date: Re: discrete math, how many zeroes in 125!
  • Previous by thread: RE: Re: Re: Non-comm
  • Next by thread: Re: Non-comm