RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | Nathaniel Smith | 3/9/14 8:09 AM | Greetings, Sage Ones, Some of you may have already seen this, but I've started working on a draft PEP for adding a dedicated operator for matrix multiplication to Python: https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/4351 https://github.com/njsmith/numpy/blob/matmul-pep/doc/neps/return-of-revenge-of-matmul-pep.rst I'm not sure how this would affect Sage, but since I know you have both matrix-like types and your own ideas about what various unused tokens should mean, I figure you'll probably have opinions :-). (Also, there's some discussion of sage.misc.decorators.infix_operator in the final section - hopefully I'm not mischaracterizing anything there.) The overall goal is to come up with a proposal that the whole Python numeric community can support, and that ideally in the long run will help reduce fragmentation in matrix APIs, so I definitely want to hear your feedback. -n | ||||

Re: [sage-devel] RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | John Cremona | 3/9/14 9:14 AM | I find it very hard to imagine Sage using anything other than * (as in
A*B) for normal matrix multiplication, as anything else would alienate all of its mathematical users. I would have no reason at all ever to have an element-wise matrix product! John Cremona > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-devel" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to sage-...@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. | ||||

Re: [sage-devel] RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | Jeroen Demeyer | 3/9/14 10:19 AM | On 2014-03-09 16:09, n...@vorpus.org wrote:I completely agree with John Cremona: please keep * for matrix multiplication. Why not add a new dedicated operator for elementwise multiplication and use * for matrix multiplication? In your PEP, you say that using * for matrix multiplication is a bad idea, but without any justification (the only justification is variations on "it's a bad idea" without reasons). Jeroen. | ||||

Re: [sage-devel] RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | Jeroen Demeyer | 3/9/14 11:49 AM | On 2014-03-09 18:19, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:From reading your PEP, it's clear that you don't like numpy.matrix but you don't say what's wrong with it. | ||||

Re: RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | Dima Pasechnik | 3/9/14 12:03 PM | In fact the PEP has a justification along the lines that elementwise
matrix multiplication and scalar multiplication pops up 4 times more often in numpy code. But I doubt that the count was made correctly. Even if it was the case, still this would be truly horrible idea to use * for entrywise matrix multiplication... I've posted a comment here: https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/4351#issuecomment-37135112 Dima > > Jeroen. > | ||||

Re: [sage-devel] RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | Jeroen Demeyer | 3/9/14 12:20 PM | I think the following piece should be made more clear, I don't
understand what you're trying to say here: The problem is that the presence of two different duck-types for numeric data -- one where * means matrix multiply, and one where * means elementwise multiplication -- make it impossible to write generic functions that can operate on arbitrary data. | ||||

Re: [sage-devel] RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | Nathaniel Smith | 3/9/14 12:40 PM | Indeed, it's clear from everyone's responses here that I at least need to add a new section talking about these things explicitly, and also about why elementwise-* is actually used so often in practice in numeric computation (as opposed dto symbolic comptuation), and why np.matrix is so loathed. (It really is though, I didn't just make that up :-) I doubt you can find a single developer of any numpy-using package who has anything good to say about it.) I'll try to get to write such a section over the next few hours; at least it might make a better basis for discussion. In brief, the issue is that elementwise-* is a fine convention and you can use it to write useful code, and matrix-multiply-* is a fine convention and you can use it to write useful code, but if you then try to glue those two pieces of code together into a larger system you will quickly find yourself in hell as you have to cast objects back and forth at every function call. Or similarly, if you try to write a function that works regardless of whether it receives an elementwise-*-object or a matrix-multiply-*-object, then this is also very painful (suddenly you need lots of type-checking and if statements scattered around every single function you write, it's horrible and no-one is willing to do it). This doesn't get into the reasons why numpy goes with the elementwise-* convention, but it's why it seems important to have *some* convention. (Some of the reasons for why numpy goes with elementwise-* are here: https://github.com/njsmith/numpy/blob/matmul-pep/doc/neps/return-of-revenge-of-matmul-pep.rst#choice-of-operation ; the other important reason that that section doesn't talk about as much as it could is that numpy has n-dimensional arrays, while matrix multiplication is only really natural for 2d arrays.)
-n | ||||

Re: [sage-devel] RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | William | 3/9/14 1:44 PM | On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, <n...@vorpus.org> wrote:I'm not convinced * is a fine convention for element-wise multiplication of matrices, since there is no software I know of that does that. Even Matlab uses * to mean matrix multiplication: http://www.math.utah.edu/~eyre/computing/matlab-intro/math.html But * is set in stone for numpy. The motivation for your proposal is to make your example code involving matrix multiplication of numpy arrays easier to read/write. I wonder if there is any way to do this using a with statement, e.g., c = a*b # element-wise multiplication with numpy.mul_as_dot(): c = a*b # matrix multiplication Then the exact part of the code that involves some expressions with matrix multiplies of numpy arrays can be cleanly written with * instead of of numpy.dot, and without having to introduce another operator. Is this at least technically possible? If so, it is worth addressing in the PEP. It would solve the problem of coding up certain algorithms cleanly, and it is extremely clear and explicit what is going on when you just jump into the code. Another issue -- imagine jumping into code and seeing @'s everywhere -- you would have to google and figure out what is going on, which could be hard for "@ operator". For example, I use the @ operator all the time in CoffeeScript, so it's a useful thing, but googling "@ operator" yields basically nothing useful about anything. -- William
> ---- William Stein Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org | ||||

Re: RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | Dima Pasechnik | 3/9/14 1:52 PM | On 2014-03-09, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:Mathematica does this. (and it uses '.' for the usual matrix multiplication). IIRC Maple used to have something like *& to denote matrix multiplication, don't know if this is still the case, | ||||

Re: [sage-devel] RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | Jeroen Demeyer | 3/9/14 2:10 PM | On 2014-03-09 20:40, n...@vorpus.org wrote:My impression is that a lot of this confusion is because you confuse matrix and ndarray. They represent very different data structures and purposes (they might be very similar in implementation and may share many methods, but that doesn't matter here) . They are simply different kinds of objects with different multiplication operations. Duck typing should treat * as a "black box" operation, when you want to differentiate between different kinds of multiplication you're probably doing it wrong. | ||||

Re: [sage-devel] RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | Jeroen Demeyer | 3/9/14 2:12 PM | On 2014-03-09 20:40, n...@vorpus.org wrote: > Indeed, it's clear from everyone's responses here that I at least needPerhaps a better solution would be to fix numpy.matrix then? | ||||

Re: [sage-devel] Re: RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | William | 3/9/14 2:29 PM | Thanks for pointing that out. I looked it up and Mathematica does not
even have a Matrix data type at all: "Matrices are represented in Mathematica with lists." https://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/howto/CreateAMatrix.html Hey, you're right-ish: http://kb.iu.edu/data/afbm.html They don't use * either, they use "." (like in Mathematica). They deprecated *&. So I stand corrected. | ||||

Re: [sage-devel] RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | Nathaniel Smith | 3/9/14 2:42 PM | On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 8:44 PM, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:R alsos use * for elementwise mul. And really, it does work fine and is useful in many application areas, I promise! :-) I've sent similar heads-up emails to 13 projects now, and so far you guys are the only ones who have blinked at this part; numpy has ~25x more PyPI downloads than sympy (a terrible metric I know, but perhaps it's at least some vague noisy estimate of relative user bases) and I guess those users are pretty much all happy with elementwise-*. My point isn't that the majority is always right or anything like that. I'm just saying, if you think elementwise-* is not just sub-optimal but also bizarre and unthinkable, then you might be missing something :-) (just like I was missing something when I thought that elementwise-* was so obvious it needed no justification). It may well be that the answer is that sage (and perhaps sympy) is just not in the target audience for this PEP, because you only have one multiplication operation that matters and the status quo works fine for you. If so that's great, though it'd still be good to coordinate to the extent it makes sense, and the feedback is still really useful. This is a really interesting suggestion, and it is technically possible. Unfortunately, though, after thinking for a bit I see some problems that strike me as insurmountable -- here's a potential discussion in PEP-ese (to be slotted into the list of "rejected alternatives"): **Use ``with`` to switch the meaning of ``*`` within a single code block**: E.g., numpy could define a special context object so that we'd have:: c = a * b # element-wise multiplication with numpy.mul_as_dot: c = a * b # matrix multiplication However, this has two serious problems: first, it requires that every matrix-like object ``__mul__`` method know how to check some global state (``numpy.mul_is_currently_dot`` or whatever). This is fine if ``a`` and ``b`` are numpy objects, but the world contains many non-numpy matrix-like objects. So this either requires non-local coupling -- every numpy competitor library has to import numpy and then check ``numpy.mul_is_currently_dot`` on every operation -- or else it breaks duck-typing, with the above code doing radically different things depending on whether ``a`` and ``b`` are numpy objects or some other sort of object. Second, and worse, ``with`` blocks are dynamically scoped, not lexically scoped; i.e., any function that gets called inside the ``with`` block will suddenly find itself executing inside the mul_as_dot world, and crash and burn horribly (if you're lucky). So this is a construct that could only be used safely in rather limited cases (no function calls), and which makes it very easy to shoot yourself in the foot without warning. What do you think? I'm not really that worried about this, because it's the same problem that *every* builtin operator faces. How do you know what << or // or ^ or | or % or ** do when you first see them? You flip to the table at the back/front of your Python reference that lists all the operators, and it tells you what they are. If this PEP is accepted, then @ will be listed there right next to the rest of them. Even * is pretty arbitrary the first time you see it -- real mathematical notation uses \cdot or occasionally \times, not \star -- but we forget this because we already learned it a while ago :-). -n | ||||

Re: RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | Simon King | 3/9/14 5:09 PM | Hi Nathaniel,
are you sure that you talk about actual matrices? Or do you just talk about 2-dimensional arrays? By the way, how could your PEP possibly be relevant to Python? IIRC, there neither is a matrix type nor an array type in Python, thus, it makes no sense whatsoever to theoretise about special symbols for matrix multiplication and component-wise action on arrays in *Python*. Such discussion sure makes sense in a CAS, though.. On 2014-03-09, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > ... > R alsos use * for elementwise mul. And really, it does work fine andQuite bizarre indeed, as I'd thought that your suggestion will seem rather odd to most mathematicians and computer scientists. In mathematics, a lot of different multiplication symbols are in use. For example, usually \cdot denotes pointwise multiplication, whereas \star denotes convolution and \circ denotes composition, and there is also cartesian product \times and tensor product \otimes. In principal, all these operations can occur at the same time, thus, there is no way around using a variety of symbols, to avoid confusion. Thus, it would certainly be a reasonable PEP to provide a framework in Python to define custom infix operators (say, operator.compose), by providing a character (say: '@') and the name of a custom "magical method" (say: '__composition__') that is called on the operator's arguments, in the same way as operator.mul uses '*' and results in calling '__mul__'. However, in all algebraic textbooks I am aware of, \cdot is consistently used to denote... - multiplication in fields, - the componentwise action of a field on vectors resp. matrices, aka scalar multiplication, - the dot product of vectors (resulting in a field element) - matrix multiplication, - generally multiplication in a ring, unless different kinds of multiplication occur It may seem natural to multiply two 2-dimensional ARRAYS component-wise. However, if you have MATRICES that deserve such a title (say, they encode a linear map) then "Matrix \cdot Matrix" clearly is matrix multiplication and nothing else. Python does not know about rings and vector spaces, whereas Sage does: Sage uses '*' for multiplication in rings and for module actions. In particular, by consistency, Sage must use '*' to denote multiplication of square matrices (since this is multiplication in a matrix ring) Python uses * to denote multiplication of numbers, which is \cdot in textbooks. Hence, according to the "principle of least surprise", one has to use * for what is commonly denoted by \cdot in textbooks. And this includes matrix multiplication. In conclusion: 1) Python has no array or matrix types, thus adding a special symbol for matrix multiplication makes no sense in Python. 2) It makes sense to support adding custom infix operators to Python. 3) Python could of course add an array type with component-wise multiplication and a matrix type with matrix multiplication. But please keep "arrays" and "matrices" apart. 4) It is common to use the same operator symbol for various types of operands. There is 'ab'+'cd' and 'ab'*3 in contrast to 3+4 and 4*3. So, why should one suddenly start using new symbols if the operand types happens to be "matrix"? Best regards, Simon | ||||

Re: RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | Simon King | 3/9/14 5:16 PM | On 2014-03-10, Simon King <simon...@uni-jena.de> wrote:Here I did a wrong edit. Sorry. I meant to say: FOR FUNCTIONS, \cdot usually denotes pointwise multiplication > ..., whereas > \star denotes convolution and \circ denotes composition, and thereFor matrices, \cdot clearly is NOT pointwise. Cheers, Simon | ||||

Re: [sage-devel] Re: RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | Nathaniel Smith | 3/9/14 5:51 PM | On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Simon King <simon...@uni-jena.de> wrote:Sure -- this is a useful distinction, and as far as it goes, I'm talking about arrays. But people do in fact want to do the operation commonly referred to as "matrix multiplication" when working with arrays, whether we like it or not. Many many people. Github code search produces >23,000 Python files containing the string "np.dot", and every one of those is a violation of the "keep matrices and arrays" separate principle. So this is the reality we live in... There are a dozen or more array and matrix types in Python. I use them all the time. So do thousands of other people. You don't download them from http://python.org, but this doesn't make them nonsense... Well, not ones who crunch numbers all day :-). It's got a long history -- e.g. Fortran also uses * to mean elementwise mul. I do not believe that it is possible to write such a PEP that would be acceptable to the broader Python community. (I don't even think I could come up with such a PEP that I would accept if I were BDFL.) It's a huge change to how Python works, and runs into a lot of practical problems (defining precedence, defining scoping, creating nasty couplings between parse time and eval time, etc.). That's just my best judgement, though; if someone comes along with a convincing proposal then I'll certainly advocate it. Sure, fair enough. If you're lucky enough to be dealing only with pure mathematical matrices, then the problem this PEP is addressing doesn't arise. Practical number crunching OTOH isn't so pretty, but it is useful :-). -n | ||||

Re: Re: RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | Marc Mezzarobba | 3/9/14 11:10 PM | William Stein wrote:Actually Maple has no real matrix multiplication operator. They use "*" to denote "commutative multiplication", and "." for "non-commutative multiplication" (and "*~" for elementwise multiplication, "@" for composition, "&*" for user-defined multiplication). Both "*" and "." can be used as part of symbolic expressions (a*b-b*a is immediately simplified to 0, while a.b-b.a is not), and are interpreted as multiplication of more concrete objects where it makes sense. -- Marc | ||||

Re: [sage-devel] Re: RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | Nicolas M. Thiéry | 3/10/14 3:15 AM | On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:51:46AM +0000, Nathaniel Smith wrote:For whatever it's worth, I'd love to have more infix operators in Python. Ideally ones that you can define dynamically. Ideally UTF-8 ones like ⊗ (typically for tensor products) and ⊕ (direct sums) which would not create syntax conflicts. Now I can see the difficulty you point at, so the following would already be progress: - More infix operators defined statically. E.g. @ calling a custom method __composition__ as suggested by Simon. - The possibility to define such operators in the ipython console, even if they don't work in code. Other than that, I see the importance of both multiplications, definitely prefer * for matrix multiplication, and see the conflict with the large numerical communities where * is often used for pointwise multiplication on arrays. Good luck! Cheers, Nicolas -- Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nth...@users.sf.net> http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/ | ||||

Re: [sage-devel] Re: RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | Travis Scrimshaw | 3/10/14 3:59 PM | I think having the ability to define additional infix operators would be great. Yet I agree that it would be near impossible to deal with in practice; in particular, changing the parser language (I could see even a static change triggering a recompile of python) and sorting out the precedence. However since * is used in python (other languages) to denote multiplication of the left and right sides, I think with matrices it should denote the usual multiplication. | ||||

Re: RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | Niles Johnson | 3/11/14 5:43 AM | I actually just have a minor complaint about the very last sentence. In the last section you write
First, I didn't know Sage had that and I doubt I will ever use it! Second, I think your last sentence is too much of a stretch. It's fair to say that Sage shipping an infix hack is (possibly) evidence that people love infix operators. (Although the fact that it's not used much would suggest that they don't love them that much.) But -- as you rightly point out earlier -- Sage has no element-wise multiplication, using * only for matrix multiplication. So it's a bit unfair to say that Sage's infix hack is further evidence that Python needs a new operator for matrix multiplication. If anything, it would be more accurate (and a stronger argument) to point out that the entire Sage library uses an infix operator for matrix multiplication and doesn't even define element-wise multiplication -- that's how highly Sage thinks of matrix multiplication. This point is implicit in your discussion of Partial- or Non-Adoption, and if you think it's important I would suggest expanding that instead of trying to rework the last sentence. | ||||

Re: RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | rjf | 3/11/14 3:26 PM | Maxima, part of Sage, has had an extensible (at run time) parser for perhaps 35 years. You could ask about the experience there, maybe read about the pros and cons. Or you could be more conventional and ignore others' past experience. :) What's "PEP" stand for? I assume that at least one of the P's is python... RJF | ||||

Re: [sage-devel] Re: RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | Robert Bradshaw | 3/11/14 5:29 PM | First off, to start with a funny anecdote, I remember working with
some of the early Sage devs way back in the day optimizing matrix multiplication and we were baffled by the fact that numpy somehow managed to have O(n^2) behavior into the thousand by thousand matrix range :). More serious responses below. I think this arrays vs. matrices is *the* key distinction to keep in mind. Element-wise is the only sane way to extend binary operations to arrays of arbitrary dimension. By this logic, we should define multiplication of polynomials element-wise as well: after all polynomials are typically defined as arrays of coefficients.... There are certainly times when one wants to work with arrays like this in Sage, and it's perfectly fine to invoke numpy to do so. In general, however, x*y (where x and y are of the same type, or coercible to the same type) denotes multiplication as defined in the parent (Group, Ring, Monoid, whatever) of x and y. This isn't special to matrices: it applies to rationals, algebraic numbers, polynomials, permutations, etc. The * operator is also used to denote an action, e.g. on scalar multiplication of a matrix, a matrix acting on a vector, or the integer ring on a abelian group like an elliptic curve. Pretty much whatever would be represented on the blackboard by a \cdot or simply placing symbols adjacent to each other. IMHO it seems odd to try to define a new infix operator that specifically has "matrix multiplication" semantics. That seems out of the domain of the Python language. If it were to be accepted, there's no way Sage would start using * to do element-wise multiplication of matrices. - Robert | ||||

Re: [sage-devel] Re: RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | William | 3/11/14 6:33 PM | On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Robert Bradshaw <robe...@gmail.com> wrote:I remember precisely that happening to me. I was extremely impressed.... for a few minutes. > More serious responses below. >Relevant link is [1]. As founder of the project, I second Robert's assertion that no matter what, "there's no way Sage would start using * to do element-wise multiplication of matrices." [1] http://www.sagemath.org/doc/reference/coercion/ | ||||

Re: [sage-devel] Re: RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | Nathaniel Smith | 3/11/14 6:54 PM | On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Niles Johnson <nil...@gmail.com> wrote: Yeah, you're right, that was definitely me getting carried away on a first draft there. Thanks for catching it. I rewrote that section to just leave sage out of it entirely -- it's not really the main point. -n | ||||

Re: [sage-devel] Re: RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | Nathaniel Smith | 3/11/14 8:12 PM | On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:26 PM, rjf <fat...@gmail.com> wrote: Alas, there's pretty much no chance of getting an extensible parser into Python at this point. (Among other things, Python uses a strict two-stage parse-then-run system!)
"Python Enhancement Proposal" -- it's the standard process for proposing changes to the Python language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python_%28programming_language%29#Development -n | ||||

Re: [sage-devel] Re: RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | Nathaniel Smith | 3/11/14 8:16 PM | On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery
<Nicolas...@u-psud.fr> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:51:46AM +0000, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> > Thus, it would certainly be a reasonable PEP to provide a framework in >> > Python to define custom infix operators (say, operator.compose), by >> > providing a character (say: '@') and the name of a custom "magical >> > method" (say: '__composition__') that is called on the operator's >> > arguments, in the same way as operator.mul uses '*' and results in >> > calling '__mul__'. >> >> I do not believe that it is possible to write such a PEP that would be >> acceptable to the broader Python community. (I don't even think I >> could come up with such a PEP that I would accept if I were BDFL.) >> It's a huge change to how Python works, and runs into a lot of >> practical problems (defining precedence, defining scoping, creating >> nasty couplings between parse time and eval time, etc.). >> >> That's just my best judgement, though; if someone comes along with a >> convincing proposal then I'll certainly advocate it. > > For whatever it's worth, I'd love to have more infix operators in > Python. Ideally ones that you can define dynamically. Ideally UTF-8 > ones like ⊗ (typically for tensor products) and ⊕ (direct sums) which > would not create syntax conflicts. Now I can see the difficulty you > point at, so the following would already be progress: > > - More infix operators defined statically. E.g. @ calling a custom > method __composition__ as suggested by Simon. Well, *cough*, you didn't hear it from me, but just because a method is called __matmul__, doesn't mean it actually has to multiply any matrices... I don't think we'll ever see BDFL approval for adding random infix operators with no predetermined use case, but once an operator is added the use case is just a convention. > - The possibility to define such operators in the ipython console, > even if they don't work in code. Doesn't sage already do something like this? In any case, it's outside the scope of a PEP; luckily getting changes into ipython is *much* easier than getting them into cpython :-) > Other than that, I see the importance of both multiplications, > definitely prefer * for matrix multiplication, and see the conflict > with the large numerical communities where * is often used for > pointwise multiplication on arrays. Good luck! Thanks! -n | ||||

Re: RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | Nils Bruin | 3/14/14 1:32 PM | On Sunday, March 9, 2014 8:09:58 AM UTC-7, n...@vorpus.org wrote:
I've seen many examples of complicated matrix expressions that really benefit from having an infix notation for matrix multiplication. I haven't seen many examples of complicated expressions that involve element-wise multiplication, and none that mix the two. Therefore, in the absence of two infix multiplication operators, would it make sense to have "A*B" denote matrix product and "A.hadamard(B)" or "A.elementwise_product(B)" element-wise product? This is what sage already does. | ||||

Re: [sage-devel] Re: RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | David Roe | 3/14/14 1:39 PM | I think their objection is that hadamard is too long, given the ubiquity of element-wise product in the numerical computing world. From Sage's perspective, I don't think we want anything to change. David | ||||

Re: [sage-devel] Re: RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | William | 3/14/14 1:48 PM | > David.
In retrospect, it appears that the OP should have asked the following question: From the perspective of Sage, if Python were to have another arithmetic operator (denoted @) with identical precedence rules to *, would we use it for anything? Would we extend the coercion model, etc.? Are there any algebraic structures at all that have two different "multiplications"? If the answers are "yes!" and there are interesting examples, it would provide support for his proposal. My personal answer to the above is: no, no, no... My reasoning is that if the answer had been "YES!", then we most certainly would have added such a thing via the preparser. However, I can't remember even once in 8 years when anybody ever brought up this as a proposed addition to the preparser (both on lists or in person). His actual PEP had something claiming we had added something to the preparser, but that was not a multiplication operator, but simply a backslash shorthand for matrix inversion, like in Matlab, that nobody uses or cares about -- I just added it one day for fun in the early days -- based on no demand. -- William -- William -- William Stein Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org | ||||

Re: [sage-devel] Re: RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | Nathaniel Smith | 3/14/14 1:51 PM | On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Nils Bruin <nbr...@sfu.ca> wrote:I replied to Jeroen asking a similar question a few days ago, but I guess it was on the sympy list instead of here. Anyway, this gives more details on why elementwise products are important for number-crunching (though not so much for mathematical analysis), and has an example of a natural expression that uses both * and @ together: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sympy/4tGlBGTggZY/JHK74QnGdMYJ -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith Postdoctoral researcher - Informatics - University of Edinburgh http://vorpus.org | ||||

Re: [sage-devel] Re: RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | Travis Scrimshaw | 3/14/14 5:10 PM |
I think of a tensor algebra of an algebra (I could probably come up with others with some thought that might be somewhat contrived but practical). Yet I don't want to modify the preparser to add (for example) # to denote something as specific as a tensor product, must less that we can't override it in subclasses. On a slightly related note, I would like a non-commutative and/or non-associative infix operator. I had no idea such a shorthand was available in Sage. *Goes off to play with it* Best, Travis | ||||

Re: [sage-devel] Re: RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | Nathaniel Smith | 3/15/14 10:21 AM | On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 8:48 PM, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:Indeed, this probably would have been the correct question, if only I'd known! But the end result is that I learned a lot about how Sage approaches things that I didn't know before, and the PEP got much stronger from getting this feedback from a perspective I hadn't understood before -- in fact I rewrote large parts of it in response to comments here and on the sympy list. Thank you very much to everyone who took the time to comment. The current status, in case anyone is curious, is that it looks like '@' will in fact appear in Python 3.5, once some details are worked out: https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/4351#issuecomment-37717330 If anyone here does have any opinions on those details then I'd love to hear them. Hmm, I don't remember saying this, and the text changed quite a bit from what I originally sent around, but if you see any remaining inaccuracies then please let me know so I can fix them! :-): http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0465/ (In fact I know there's one inaccuracy in that version -- it says that sage & sympy don't implement elementwise multiplication at all. My local draft changes that to "Projects which currently use * for matrix multiplication, and which don't really care about elementwise multiplication at all", which I think is closer to the truth?) | ||||

Re: [sage-devel] Re: RFC: draft PEP for adding @ as a matrix multiplication operator to Python | Robert Bradshaw | 3/15/14 12:15 PM | It's not that we don't care about elementwise multiplication of
*arrays*, it's that we don't care about elementwise multiplication of *matrices* (and I've yet to find any use of the latter at all). I think the problem of numpy.matrix is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_over_inheritance There's currently only a single example (after much searching) where the two need to be mixed--an explicit conversion would be fine here. I am also opposed to this PEP as it singles out one (or two) special operators that behave differently than any other operator w.r.t. *not* being elementwise. The current behavior is much easier to understand. (I'm also not a fan of @ being both an operator and being used for decorators... but that's a different issue.) Also, this is not just about multiplication (or exponentiation). Note that for a matrix M and a scalar a the sum M + a is M + I a (where I is the identity matrix), again not elementwise. sage: import numpy as np sage: a = np.array([[1,2],[3,4]]) sage: a array([[1, 2], [3, 4]]) sage: a + 100 array([[101, 102], [103, 104]]) sage: M = matrix([[1,2],[3,4]]); M [1 2] [3 4] sage: M + 100 [101 2] [ 3 104] - Robert |