Talk:Conjugate transpose

One more way of denoting the conjugate transpose?

Why aren't "*T" listed as a possible notation for the conjugate transpose? This notation, which I've previously encountered in statistical signal processing, is presumably more intuitive, since it really is just a combination of conjugate and transpose. --Fredrik Orderud 00:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I never encountered the notation as you say, $A^{*T}\,$. I'd say it looks a bit clumsy. Besides, note that in this article (and in many other places) they use the bar for the conjugate, so then your notation might need to be changed to ${\overline {A}}^{T}$.

If you think the notation you mention is in widespread use, and its addition would be helpful, you could add it to the list of alternative notations, next to $A^{*},A^{H},{\mbox{ or }}A^{\dagger }\,$. But again, the * thing might mean different things to different people. Oleg Alexandrov 01:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, the notation may very vell not be in widespread use. I've previously also used the "H" notation (in medical ultrasound). What about including the $A^{H}\equiv {\overline {A}}^{T}$ (or simmilar using the "*" notation) equation, which I find easier ut understand than the current definition? --Fredrik Orderud 09:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure. But again, putting the notation with the star where star means conjugate, will conflict with the star where star means transpose. The notation with ${\overline {A}}^{T}$ looks fine. Probably it is more appropriate to include it in the list of alternative notations, than to replace everywhere the current notation with this one. What do you think? Oleg Alexandrov 15:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I added the $A^{H}\equiv {\overline {A}}^{T}$ definition since it seemed like that was ok. Dan Granahan 15:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Rant

Start Rant. i just wanted to say that this maths article is yet another overly jargon filled maths wikipedia page. I know this is a general gripe but I find these maths pages seem to be written for the use of some one who already understands the ideas, which is completely the opposite idea behind the whole reason for having a wikipedia. that said, i still don't know how to fix the problem. i spose the problem is that the people qualified to write about these sorts of things are mathematicians who have mentally digested the jargon a long time ago and dont have to think about them. also there is this whole 'minimalism' thing in maths where if you show a proof or something you only show the bare minimum number of steps such that a laymen often can't follow the proof all the way through because an 'assumed' step has been ommitted.

but this isn't a proof, this is wikipedia, a platform on which people can share ideas and so omitting 'assumed' steps is probably a bad thing. It limits the audience, makes the person who can't understand it feel swamped and dumb (yes im speaking from personal experience ;-P ) and from my perspective means the writer of the 'proof' look elitist. oh well. End Rant. -anon