From: <HIDDEN>
Newsgroups: comp.soft-sys.matlab
Subject: Re: dot product and vectors with imaginary numbers
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 06:41:03 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Boeing Co
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <i117hv$pm4$>
References: <i10g08$ei8$> <i10gmo$t6q$> <i10m8u$lc0$> <i11100$3vc$> <i112tr$9df$>
Reply-To: <HIDDEN>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: 1278484863 26308 (7 Jul 2010 06:41:03 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 06:41:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: MATLAB Central Newsreader 756104
Xref: comp.soft-sys.matlab:650957

"Bruno Luong" <b.luong@fogale.findmycountry> wrote in message <i112tr$9df$>...
> "Matt Fig" <> wrote in message <i11100$3vc$>...
> > 
> > 
> > Hmmmm,  I was thinking this was a Hermitian Form, as shown here (equation 2):
> > 
> >
> > 
> > I was taught that the second vector is conjugated in this case, so the result is the conjugate of the MATLAB definition.  Is it just convention or what? 
> I don't believe there is a universal standard for fixing the first or second argument that being conjugate in the dot product, but yeah in most "classical" textbooks I read (Brezis, Rudin, Ciarley), they often gives 
> <a,b> = sum(a.*conj(b))
> as definition. Matlab DOT function is the opposite.
> Both conventions are correct dot products so as to induce an Hilbert space as defined in a more abstract way.
> Bruno

FYI, both Fortran and the BLAS routines conjugate the first, like MATLAB.

James Tursa