Re: missing intent concept?

Very good point, and it seems to depend on the author's background. The physicists' (and Dirac's original) convention is that bra is anti-linear – ket is linear, and I think this is more often used. But you are perfectly right that in functional analysis the opposite convention is used :-).
GB







> On 27. Nov 2025, at 08:40, Stephen Watt <smwatt@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 <mailto: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
>>> 
>>