Stuart Brorson wrote: > Thank you for your answer! > >>> As a NumPy newbie, I am still learning things about NumPy which I didn't >>> expect. Today I learned that for a matrix of complex numbers, >>> numpy.max() returns the element with the largest *real* part, not the >>> element with the largest *magnitude*. >> There isn't a single, well-defined (partial) ordering of complex numbers. >> Both >> the lexicographical ordering (numpy) and the magnitude (Matlab) are useful > > [... snip ...] > > Yeah, I know this. In fact, one can think of zillions of way to > induce an ordering on the complex numbers, like Hamming distance, > ordering via size of imaginary component, etc. And each might have > some advantages in a particular problem domain. > > Therefore, perhaps I need to refocus, or perhaps sharpen my question: > Is it NumPy's goal to be as compatible with Matlab as possible?
No. > Or > when questions of mathematical ambiguity arise (like how to order a > sequence of complex numbers), does NumPy chose its own way? Yes. -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
