Re: missing intent concept?

One thing to watch out for is that the linearity convention for which side
gets complex conjugation is different, I believe.

That is
    < alpha u| v > = < u | conj(alpha) v>  = alpha <u | v>
but
    (alpha u, v) = (u, conj(alpha) v) =  conj(alpha) (u, v)

On Thu, Nov 27, 2025, 08:07 Gabriella Böhm <bohm@ems.press> wrote:

> Wow… the whole concept seems to be missing, indeed. I guess
> | y > should be listed as “vector”,
>  < x | as “co-vector" or “functional",
>  < x | y >  could be listed under the existing title "inner-product” (or
> under a synonymous new one “scalar-product”),
> | y >< x | stands for “dyad” or “dyadic-product"
> all in linear (or vector) algebra (and physics, where this Dirac notation
> comes from).
>
> Gabriella
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 26. Nov 2025, at 22:40, Neil Soiffer <soiffer@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> I am working on a MathCAT issue about bra-ket notation. Much to my
> surprise, I didn't find it listed in either the core
> <https://w3c.github.io/mathml-docs/intent-core-concepts/>or open
> <https://w3c.github.io/mathml-docs/intent-open-concepts/>concept lists.
> Does it have some other name, or was it overlooked?
>
>     Neil
>
>
>