SIZE()

[Angus]

Not at all! I have the feeling that there is a lot of confusion between the two of us. :-)

My problem ist that the prime seems to distinguish between a vector and 1xn or nx1 matrices. Nothing more. Store a scalar into M1. No complaints - a matrix is the result.
Store a "vector" into M1- it remains a "vector". Transpose it. It becomes a matrix.... The problem is that something like DOT() does ONLY work with the limited type "vector" and e.g. not with a 1xn "matrix". Plus the vector must be a row vector. Others do not exist.

The problem is I cannot follow the idea of introducing a special type "vector" with the prime which is only a row vector. There is no column vector. And in addition that row vector has other privileges than a 1xn matrix.

That was all. I was not argueing against your statement. I was trying to get to the point where I could explain to you what I mean (because I think that my point got lost during the whole thread). I hope that I accomplished that mission. Hope I could consiliate you! I think maybe Tim could explain what's up with a vector and why it is so special. So let us wait for other problems or interessting aspects to arise.


btw. The set has, of course, two elements. But a set is something completely different than a vector which should, by definition, be a matrix type.