Alec Jacobson

Given the current choices in I❤️LA, I'd say that the summation and indexing already determines the valid range of values for `j`. So, as `∑_i ∑_j A_i,j` already only considers...

Similarly, ```I❤️LA A : ℝⁿ ``` should compile as ```I❤️LA A : ℝ^(n) ```

This starts to get a bit esoteric. I think we _could_ but it seems an order of magnitude less important than unary minus operator.

This is a somewhat dubious use of `ˣ` but we could make our cartesian product declarations very unicode-beautiful with support for things like: ``` A ∈ ℝⁿˣ³ ```

X unfortunately On Sun, May 16, 2021, 7:31 PM Yotam Gingold ***@***.***> wrote: > Is that a superscript x or a superscript ×? I don't think I like this. >...

(similar to https://github.com/pressureless/linear_algebra/issues/45 but appears in a different spot in the codegens so using this issue to track and ensure its fixed).

I'm not sure I understand the distinction. The cpp code is running over "all" of the indices (not even sure how it would know what the range is). The intended...

Oh. Well, I don't think we can/should really handle that. If we did then we couldn't even do simply access like: ```I❤️LA given i ∈ ℤ b = a_i where...

Agreed! That'd be even better >

This invites a discussion of scope. What if I write: ``` given x,y,z ∈ ℝ² f(b) = x⋅b g = f(y) + f(z) ``` ? I claim `x` should be...