On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 4:17 AM, Ilhan Polat wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I was stalking the deprecating the numpy.matrix discussion on the other
> thread and I wondered maybe the mailing list is a better place for the
> discussion about something I've been meaning to ask the dev members. I
> thoug
> Note that you're proposing a new scipy feature (right?) on the numpy
list
> This sounds like a good idea to me. As a former heavy Matlab user I
remember a lot of things to dislike, but "\" behavior was quite nice.
Correct, I am not sure where this might go in. It seemed like a NumPy array
o
Hi all,
On behalf of the Bokeh team, I am pleased to announce the release of version
0.12.4 of Bokeh!
Please see the announcement post at:
https://bokeh.github.io/blog/2017/1/6/release-0-12-4/
which has more information as well as live demonstrations.
If you are using Anaconda/minico
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 6:27 AM, Ilhan Polat wrote:
> > Note that you're proposing a new scipy feature (right?) on the numpy
> list
>
> > This sounds like a good idea to me. As a former heavy Matlab user I
> remember a lot of things to dislike, but "\" behavior was quite nice.
>
> Correct, I a
Indeed, generic is the cheapest discovery including the worst case that
only the last off-diagonal element is nonzero, a pseudo code is first
remove the diagonals check the remaining parts for nonzero, then check the
upper triangle then lower, then morally triangularness from zero structure
if any
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Ilhan Polat wrote:
> So every test in the polyalgorithm is cheaper than the next one. I'm not
exactly sure what might be the best strategy yet hence the question. It's
really interesting that LAPACK doesn't have this type of fast checks.
In Fortran LAPACK, if you
I also have been stalking this email thread. First, excellent book!
Regarding the vectorization example mentioned above, one thing to note is
that it increases the order of the algorithm relative to the pure python.
The vectorized approach uses correlate, which requires ~(len(seq) *
len(sub)) FLO
Yes, that's precisely the case but when we know the structure we can just
choose the appropriate solver anyhow with a little bit of overhead. What I
mean is that, to my knowledge, FORTRAN routines for checking for
triangularness etc. are absent.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:29 AM, Robert Kern wrote:
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Ilhan Polat wrote:
>
> Yes, that's precisely the case but when we know the structure we can just
choose the appropriate solver anyhow with a little bit of overhead. What I
mean is that, to my knowledge, FORTRAN routines for checking for
triangularness etc. are absen
