Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Move
Point
out of cubic splines module and expand it #12747Move
Point
out of cubic splines module and expand it #12747Changes from 4 commits
cc54724
c20d496
cea6e47
e0ff266
977dd07
221f1ec
ce10c5f
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The existence of an additive inverse doesn't necessarily imply that it will always equal
-1*v
. The "Compatibility of multiplication" rule below will when combined with this requirement.As an aside, should the trait
Neg
be included? Feels strange to require scalar multiplication without it, especially if we require the additive inverse be defined.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Existential quantifiers really don't belong in algebraic constraints in my opinion. I agree that it's phrased differently from usual, but there are a couple of things at play:
v + (-v) == ZERO
, but we don't demand theNeg
trait despite the fact that we have enough data to implement it ourselves (we could change this)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let's just add Neg and define it as the inverse.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Worth calling this explicitly scalar multiplication to allow for possible future definition of vector multiplication in another trait.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wrote "multiplication" because really it's "compatibility of scalar multiplication with field multiplication", which was too many words. I'm also not sure how confusing it would be in the future anyway, since vector multiplication is almost always called something else anyway (e.g. inner product, dot product, etc.).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Honestly, that's fair. Until this trait is generic over the scalar field (probably never) I think that's specific enough language already.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The mathematician in me also wants to see
MetricSpace
andInnerProductSpace
traits with corresponding blanket impls, but I agree with Alice that we shouldn't add traits until the need arises.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree! I suspect it will come up before too long if someone tries to use
NormedVectorSpace
and ends up needing a dot product.