Re: Re: RE: Re: Re:

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg13495] Re: [mg13446] Re: [mg13414] RE: [mg13344] Re: [mg13280] Re:
• From: MJE <evans at gte.net>
• Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 04:33:14 -0400
• Organization: None
• Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

```Carl,

Your point about the I-symbol is picayune.

I've already given sample problems such as you are looking for.  See the
subject line of your email and refer to the MathGroup archives.

Specifically, there is the I.A problem -- yes I want it simplified to A,
what else? -- and there is control theory and there is Kalman
filtering.  Pick up a book on Kalman filtering and try to imitate some
of the equations and their simplifications and derivations in
Mathematica.  Good luck.

Regards,

Mark

Carl Woll wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm confused by the following:
>
> > 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.
>
> Mathematica has reserved the expression 'I' to represent the square root
> of -1, so you don't want to use 'I' to represent the identity matrix. On
> the other hand, 'A' is not reserved for anything, so in general it does
> NOT represent a complex number.
>
> As an alternative, you can use one of the other letter forms to represent
> the identity matrix, for example, esc I esc, esc d s I esc, or esc s c I
> esc would be fine, since Mathematica has not reserved these expressions,
> and they look like the letter I. Or, you can just use a name like Id.
>
> At any rate, what is it that you want Mathematica to do with matrices. Is
> it just as simple as having
>
> I ** A
>
> reduce to A? That is simple enough to program, and there are many ways to
> do it. What else do you want Mathematica to do automatically with
> matrices? Why don't you give some sample problems that you would like to
> see solved, and somebody in the newsgroup may be able to provide a
> solution or point out a package which can do what you want.
>
> Carl Woll
> Dept of Physics
> U of Washington
>
> On Fri, 24 Jul 1998, MJE wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> > Ersek_Ted%PAX1A at mr.nawcad.navy.mil 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: The Mathematica Journal
• Next by Date: Q: Quantitative 3D Polygon rendering in Mathematica?
• Previous by thread: The Mathematica Journal
• Next by thread: Q: Quantitative 3D Polygon rendering in Mathematica?