Talk:Matrix-exponentiation operator: Difference between revisions
Talk:Matrix-exponentiation operator (view source)
Revision as of 21:24, 28 February 2013
, 11 years agogrammar
No edit summary |
m (grammar) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 6:
::You mean natural power? Because negative values would require matrix inversion. So the focus is actually to implement it using matrix multiplication? --[[User:Dmitry-kazakov|Dmitry-kazakov]] 05:56, 4 June 2008 (MDT)
:::Well, negative integer exponents at least will work for any ring, they don't require any algebraically closed field like the complex numbers. But of course then the operation is partial. And it's not my task, I don't know what the focus actually "is" -- the description leaves this open. However, I think the most important criterion to decide this is "what variant does tell us the most about the differences between languages?" --[[User:Dirkt|Dirkt]] 06:22, 5 June 2008 (MDT)
== Descriptions and solutions don't match ==
The task description first states that many languages have a matrix exponentiation operator.
Then it asks for an implementation of such an operation as an operator.
Most solutions don't show how to implement the operation as an operator
They simply show how to use a builtin operation.
Should the task description be rewritten to match the solutions?
: The task description first states that many languages have an exponentiation operator for integers and reals only - the implication here is that they have exponentiation but not for matrices.
: Also, the implementations I looked at did not simply call a library routine for matrix exponentiation, so I do not know what to think about that part of your question.
: (However "Reals" probably means something like "floating point" where the phrase "floating point" is referring to a representation technique such as ieee 754 and not to any language keywords.)
: --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 21:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
| |||