It's not a norm and it's not p (in the same way as norm(x,p) for p>0). See the discussion in https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/30631. It currently behaves as norm(x,p)^p -> norm(x,0) in p so it's questionable to bundle this functionality inside norm(x,p). Sure, it can be useful to count the number of non-zeros in an array but count(!iszero, x) should be just fine for that.
andreasnoack
All 6 comments
As I said on the other issue, would have to be a LinearAlgebra 2.0 change unless we genuinely believe that no one out there is using this feature.
StefanKarpinski
on 23 Jan 2019
I already added the "breaking" label. Is there another way to label 2.0 changes?
andreasnoack
on 23 Jan 2019
The 2.0 milestone.
StefanKarpinski
on 23 Jan 2019
Should the cases 0 < p < 1 be deprecated for the same reason? They're p, but they're not norms.
lostella
on 27 Jan 2019
I think it's okay to allow 0 < p < 1 since it the same definition as for p >= 1.
andreasnoack
on 31 Jan 2019
Another option would be to not take the power 1/p for 0<=p<1. Even more breaking, but then the definition for p=0 remains continuous (and thus makes sense as the limit), and it is also continuous at p=1 (but probably not smooth?). This seems to be a choice that is sometimes (often?) made in the context of L^p spaces I think, but I am not very familiar with that.
Jutho
on 7 May 2020
Related issues
yurivish
路
3Comments
i-apellaniz
路
3Comments
iamed2
路
3Comments
omus
路
3Comments
helgee
路
3Comments
Most helpful comment
Should the cases
0 < p < 1be deprecated for the same reason? They'rep, but they're notnorms.