[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]
st: RE: re: Stata's row and column labels for matrices
If you don't like Stata's default names
r1, r2, ..., c1, c2, ..., and/or
you want more informative row and
column names, then you can supply them
yourself. That is, the onus is on you
to supply names as desired.
The suggestion that Stata's default row
and column labelling
should echo the names of the matrices is
interesting, but surely undesirable in practice.
The limit on matrix name length and matrix
row/column name length appears to be 32 characters,
at least in Stata 8 SE. A fairly long matrix
name and perhaps fairly long row or column name
might well be desirable in some circumstances, but
the consequences of using the matrix name in general
to label rows and columns would often be matrix
displays difficult to read, as a few experiments with names and
-matrix list- make clear.
The present default r1, r2, ..., c1, c2, ... is a little ugly
but by contrast simple, clear and practical.
P.S. please don't send HTML to the list.
Thanks for this. Your right, of course. I feel rather stupid
having raised it in the first place. I've got a simple brain
and it seemed to me that if the resulting matrices were
labelled r1, r2... and c1, c2..., even if they weren't really
rows and columns, it could easily be misinterpreted by people
like me, especially if the matrix calculations are complex and
there aren't any suitable markers. But, as you say, they're mere
names and I'm sure Stata's got it right all along. Anyway,
matrices don't really need column or row names at all.
However, if rows and columns are named, shouldn't they be
labelled more informatively? Perhaps they can even consider
adopting your notation automatically so that matrices created
by hand aren't unimaginatively named. I guess I was thinking
that output should be informative or it should be dropped.
You've showed, I suppose, that the calculation involving
eight hand-entered matrices A-H producing a single matrix
with names r1, r2... for both rows and columns simply means
that the results were derived from rows of one matrix and
the rows of another. Which ones? Irrelevant. As you say,
there's really nothing to it and Stata's got it right.
* For searches and help try: