Definition talk:Elementary Matrix/Row Operation

From ProofWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Just thinking out loud, here. Would it be a bad idea to add the commands to do elementary row operations on a Ti-84/85/89 calculator, or in Mathematica? And as long as I'm thinking, we can do such a thing for, e.g., matrix algorithms, or converting matrices to rref, etc. --GFauxPas 10:59, 12 March 2012 (EDT)

IMO, that would be deviating from the site's purpose. I think it might be better to link to dedicated sites like can be found through Google easily. One could probably base an entire new wiki dedicated to collecting algorithm implementations and algorithms and whatever is attached to it... --Lord_Farin 12:14, 12 March 2012 (EDT)
What about just the first part of my idea, that e.g
is $r_i \to a r_i$ on $\mathbf{A}$? Still out of the scope of the wiki? I'm inclined to agree with you, but no reason not to think out loud. Should I just put a link to e.g. this at the bottom of the page under "Also see", or something? --GFauxPas 12:58, 12 March 2012 (EDT)
I still think it best to refer to particular implementations in the references section; something like the Khan academy refs (visit 'link' for an implementation of this algorithm in TI-Basic). The 'Also see' section has always appeared to me as being internal refs, not external. But maybe that's inappropriate, the Sources section doesn't exactly seem fit either. --Lord_Farin 14:16, 12 March 2012 (EDT)
I'm with LF here. We can define algorithms in pseudocode by all means, but I'm against writing implementations of said algorithms in any particular machine language or computer languages. The only exception here is the Definition:Unlimited Register Machine section, because that's serving a specific purpose. Same would apply to theoretical machines that may be designed for the purposes of documenting computability theory.
As for *row(a,[A],i) for $r_i \to a r_i$, yecch. Without an understanding of the language it's been written in the casual reader would not understand it at all. It comes across as elitist. Whereas $r_i \to a r_i$ makes more intuitive sense.
"Also see" is indeed for internal links. In fact, the use of external links for "further information" etc. is discouraged, except for the "Sources" section. But even then, this is really designed for "where (some of) this information came from" rather than "go away to someone else's even more interesting website that has so much more to offer." Yeah, right. --prime mover 15:53, 12 March 2012 (EDT)