Difference between revisions of "Talk:Tensor index notation"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "I think the phrase "suffix notation" for this is rather obscure. And, in any case, it's probably too general without some kind of qualifier restricting it to tensors. For al...") |
(Replied to comment) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 11:23, 12 September 2017 (EDT) | [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 11:23, 12 September 2017 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :OK, I change the reference to something better. | ||
| + | :I had never come across the name suffix notation and just assumed it was another name. Tensor index notation sounds good. Shall I then request it be moved to tensor index notation? [[User:FredericBernard|FredericBernard]] ([[User talk:FredericBernard|talk]]) 12:38, 12 September 2017 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 16:38, September 12, 2017
I think the phrase "suffix notation" for this is rather obscure. And, in any case, it's probably too general without some kind of qualifier restricting it to tensors. For all I know, "suffix notation" might have a meaning in linguistics or computer languages or whatever. I would suggest changing this to "tensor index notation". I think "index notation" is what you are after, that is, the kind of notation that leads to very compact and elegant representations of, for example, this semi-inner product:
The Wolfram article that you cite is about lists of indices in general, not about the particular application to tensors.
SamHB (talk) 11:23, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
- OK, I change the reference to something better.
- I had never come across the name suffix notation and just assumed it was another name. Tensor index notation sounds good. Shall I then request it be moved to tensor index notation? FredericBernard (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2017 (EDT)