4 ms·
Nice. I can roughly understand it though I don't quite understand why inner product has a transpose in it (assuming you use are using the symbols per APL). Che
by chewxy 4y ago
Nice. I can roughly understand it though I don't quite understand why inner product has a transpose in it (assuming you use are using the symbols per APL).
Check my understanding: IP = distribute `+` across an application of `*` across all transposed elements.
If your vectors/arrays are just arrays and column/row vectors are shape conventions then there is no need for transposition. Right? Unless you have some sort of checks for shapes
- japiirainen 4y agoHi, yeah you assumes right that the transpose symbol comes from APL! This language does not have ”implicit iteration” a la APL, thus * is just a binary operation you can apply like this *:<1,2> which will yield 3. This is why inner product needs to first transpose. TBH I don’t like this, I just wanted to follow the specification given in the paper as closely as possible. I might diverge from this and implement ”implicit iteration” in the future!
- chewxy 4y agoBackus' paper had a specification. TIL. Must be a weird award speech to give. Thanks for the explanation. It's now very clear
- Jtsummers 4y agoTuring Award lectures are not acceptance speeches in the normal sense. They've been technical lectures since the start related to the primary work/interest of the individual receiving the award. https://amturing.acm.org/alphabetical.cfm https://amturing.acm.org/alphabetical.cfm - You can find the lectures linked from the individual's name. The length varies significantly.