You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently, we have to make almost identical patterns since we can't generalize over operators.
E.g. almost identical pattern distribution over if branches for + and & operators.
Furthermore, many operators have properties like idempotent, commutative, and associative.
So why do I have to specify both $S_X+0 and 0+$S_X for the + operator?
Note that since operators can be overloaded the properties that hold can change:
multiplication for number is commutative, and thus holds a * b = b * a
Yet, this is not true for matrices: matrix multiplication is not commutative!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Currently, we have to make almost identical patterns since we can't generalize over operators.
E.g. almost identical pattern distribution over if branches for + and & operators.
Furthermore, many operators have properties like idempotent, commutative, and associative.
So why do I have to specify both
$S_X+0
and0+$S_X
for the+
operator?Note that since operators can be overloaded the properties that hold can change:
multiplication for number is commutative, and thus holds a * b = b * a
Yet, this is not true for matrices: matrix multiplication is not commutative!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: