- From: Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor <roconnor@wronski.math.uwaterloo.ca>
- Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 23:12:54 -0500 (EST)
- To: www-style@w3.org

On Fri, 13 Mar 1998, Richard J. Fateman wrote: > you mean matrixcol(m,c) = matrixrow(transpose(m),c) or some such. > If we had an appropriate object-oriented approach, then optional > methods could trade off between storage /access / time . Frankly, > I never thought of any of the openmath / math-sgml etc as dictating > either storage formats, access efficiency, etc. Just an inefficient > textual suggestion of what people might plausibly interpret the > same way in spite of having different basic assumptions. I often think of the columns of a matrix to be more important than the rows. Mainly this is due to the fact that e_i maps to the ith column of a matrix. So when I construct a matrix I likely know its column vectors and not its row vectors. This is refected when you see matrices written as: _ _ | | | | | A = | V_1 | V_2 | ... | V_n | |_ | | | _| which is far more common that a row vector form. This is where my thoughts of matrices alternately being defined by columns comes from. I don't know if there is time to put this idea into version 1.0 of MathML -- Russell O'Connor roconnor@uwaterloo.ca <URL:http://www.undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca/%7Eroconnor/> "And truth irreversibly destroys the meaning of its own message" -- Anindita Dutta, "The Paradox of Truth, the Truth of Entropy"

Received on Friday, 13 March 1998 23:12:56 UTC